From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tepoz v. Sosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 1997
241 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 7, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, inter alia, in failing to display lighted tail lights on the vehicle that she was attempting to park ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [a] [1]; [3]). A defendant's unexcused violation of a statute constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence and it is for the jury to determine whether the violation was the proximate cause of the accident ( see, Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164; Malloy v. Trombley, 50 N.Y.2d 46, 55; Frias v. Fanning, 119 A.D.2d 796; McConnell v. Nabozny, 110 A.D.2d 1060; Brogan v. Zummo, 92 A.D.2d 533; McAllister v Adam Packing Corp., 66 A.D.2d 975; Ortiz v. Kinoshita Co., 30 A.D.2d 334).

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tepoz v. Sosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 1997
241 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Tepoz v. Sosa

Case Details

Full title:LEONARDO TEPOZ et al., Appellants, v. KATIA R. SOSA, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 7, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
663 N.Y.S.2d 831

Citing Cases

Gilroy v. Buckley

On the basis of the foregoing, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.…

ZILLAS v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff must still, however, establish proximate cause based on that negligence. (See Crisano v Spellman,…