From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murchison v. Incognoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 2004
5 A.D.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2979.

Decided March 23, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2003, which denied defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

James M. Visser, Plaintiff-Respondent.

Dionne Sinclair, Defendants-Appellants.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Lerner, JJ.


The parties' motor vehicle collision occurred at a "T" intersection in Bronx County where Baretto Street ended at Lafayette Avenue. Plaintiff's vehicle, in the middle lane, stopped at the stop sign at the end of Baretto Street. She proceeded to turn left onto Lafayette Avenue immediately after the car in the left lane, next to her, also turned left. Plaintiff admitted that her view was obstructed by the car turning from the left lane and that she failed to see defendant's pickup truck. It is established that defendant, driving along Lafayette Avenue, had the right of way under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; plaintiff's assertion that defendant had a stop sign has been completely refuted. "[A]n operator who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield" ( Namisnak v. Martin, 244 A.D.2d 258, 260 [citations omitted]; see Perez v. Brux Cab Corp., 251 A.D.2d 157, 159-60). Since plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from her failure to yield the right-of-way to defendants' vehicle, defendant was entitled to summary judgment ( see Smalley v. McCarthy, 254 A.D.2d 478, 478-79; Yusupov v. Lugo, 305 A.D.2d 496, 496; Breslin v. Rudden, 291 A.D.2d 471, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 605). Plaintiff's bare speculation that defendant driver was "going fast" is insufficient to create an issue of fact requiring trial ( see Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Murchison v. Incognoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 2004
5 A.D.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Murchison v. Incognoli

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA M. MURCHISON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER J. INCOGNOLI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 23, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 299

Citing Cases

Walia v. Junqueira

It should be noted that, contrary to defendants Paulo and RRZ's contention, the police report, which reflects…

Vasquez v. Hernandez

The evidence submitted with Rivera's motion established that he had the right of way when defendant Hernandez…