Opinion
No. 2022-02001 Index No. 622354/18
04-24-2024
Nicole Notaroberta, appellant, v. Roby Golub, et al., respondents.
Puma Law Group, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant. Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Joel A. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for respondents.
Puma Law Group, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant.
Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Joel A. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P. ANGELA G. IANNACCI LILLIAN WAN JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Paul J. Baisley, Jr., J.), dated March 3, 2022. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On July 31, 2018, at approximately 12:40 a.m., the plaintiff was walking across Sunrise Highway in Patchogue when she was struck by a motor vehicle owned by the defendant All Island Bread Company, Inc., and operated by the defendant Roby Golub. The accident occurred on a section of the highway where pedestrian crossing was not permitted.
Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries related to the accident. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. By order dated March 3, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the plaintiff's conduct, in crossing the highway at night on a section where pedestrian crossing was not permitted, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Francis v Ride, 169 A.D.3d 771, 772; Balliet v North Amityville Fire Dept., 133 A.D.3d 559, 560). Furthermore, as is the case here, "a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react... is not comparatively at fault for failing to avoid the collision" (Breen v Seibert, 123 A.D.3d 963, 964; see Tyberg v City of New York, 173 A.D.3d 1239, 1240).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Notably, the plaintiff could not recall how the accident occurred, and her speculation that Golub may have contributed to the accident by looking behind his vehicle at merging traffic instead of at the roadway in front of him is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact under the circumstances (see Francis v Ride, 169 A.D.3d at 772; Wade v Knight Transp., Inc., 151 A.D.3d 1107, 1110).
Accordingly, we affirm the order.
DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, WAN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.