From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruocco v. Mulhall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2001
281 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted February 7, 2001.

March 5, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 11, 2000, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Robert P. Tusa, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for appellant.

Davis Hersh, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Michele A. Trabold-Bellino of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant exercised due care to avoid the accident (see, Garner v. Fox, 265 A.D.2d 525; Calico v. Phillips, 63 A.D.2d 955; Lo Giudice v. Riedel, 32 A.D.2d 950; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146), and whether the injured plaintiff failed to exercise due care in crossing the roadway at a place other than an intersection or a crosswalk (see, Thoma v. Ronai, 189 A.D.2d 635, affd 82 N.Y.2d 736; Holt v. New York City Tr. Auth., 151 A.D.2d 460; Cincotta v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 539; Rodriguez v. Robert, 47 A.D.2d 548; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152[a]).


Summaries of

Ruocco v. Mulhall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2001
281 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Ruocco v. Mulhall

Case Details

Full title:EVA RUOCCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. ELIZABETH MULHALL, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Mar 5, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 286

Citing Cases

Wolkis v. Klatch

See Charles v. Ball, 291 AD2d 367 (2d Dept. 2002). "Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the…

Wolkis v. Klatch

“Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the infant-Plaintiff was comparatively negligent for, inter alia,…