From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romeo v. DeGennaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 19, 1998
255 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

reversing trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff's affidavit concerning the circumstances of the accident differed from the evidence set forth by defendants, leaving questions of fact as to the location of the automobile when the driver first had an opportunity to see plaintiff and whether he used reasonable care to avoid hitting her

Summary of this case from Maniquiz v. Kroumah

Opinion

November 19, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).


This is an action for damages for injuries suffered when plaintiff was struck by a car owned and driven by defendants while she was crossing the West Side Highway in Manhattan on foot.

While the fact that plaintiff, a pedestrian, was crossing the West Side Highway in violation of New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) §§ 4-07 and 4-12 (o) was evidence of negligence on her part ( see, Ferrer v. Harris, 55 N.Y.2d 285, mot to amend remittitur granted 56 N.Y.2d 737, 806; Tepoz v. Sosa, 241 A.D.2d 449; Fox v. Lyte, 143 A.D.2d 390, 392), it did not, in and of itself, warrant summary judgment in defendants' favor. Since plaintiff's affidavit concerning the circumstances of the accident, which differed sharply from the evidence set forth by defendants, presented questions of fact as to the location of the automobile when the driver, defendant Gary DeGennaro, first had an opportunity to see plaintiff and whether he used reasonable care to avoid hitting her, summary judgment should have been denied.

We note that plaintiff's reliance on the "last clear chance" doctrine is inapposite, as that theory, which, under certain circumstances, allowed recovery by a plaintiff who would otherwise have been barred by his or her contributory negligence, became obsolete upon the adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence ( see, Dominguez v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 528, 533).

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Romeo v. DeGennaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 19, 1998
255 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

reversing trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff's affidavit concerning the circumstances of the accident differed from the evidence set forth by defendants, leaving questions of fact as to the location of the automobile when the driver first had an opportunity to see plaintiff and whether he used reasonable care to avoid hitting her

Summary of this case from Maniquiz v. Kroumah
Case details for

Romeo v. DeGennaro

Case Details

Full title:LINDA ROMEO, Also Known as LINDA R. GARCIA, Appellant, v. CARMINE…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 235

Citing Cases

Sylvester v. Velez

rk County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for…

Springer v. Cedro

First, the "last clear chance" doctrine of tort law, which places the entire liability for an accident on a…