From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torro v. Schiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 2004
8 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-10411.

Decided June 7, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated October 22, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Kaplan Buratti, Yonkers, N.Y. (John C. Buratti of counsel), for appellants.

Ryan S. Goldstein, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that, after the plaintiff stopped her vehicle at the double-yellow lines dividing the two-way road with the intent of entering a shopping center driveway on the other side, she made a left turn directly into the path of oncoming traffic. The plaintiff was negligent in admittedly failing to see the defendants' vehicle approaching from the opposite direction and in crossing the path of the defendants' vehicle when it was hazardous to do so ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141). This evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant driver was not negligent as a matter of law in the occurrence of the accident ( see Meretskaya v. Logozzo, 2 A.D.3d 599; Casaregola v. Farkouh, 1 A.D.3d 306; Rieman v. Smith, 302 A.D.2d 510; Russo v. Scibetti, 298 A.D.2d 514; Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444).

In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was comparatively negligent, inter alia, in allegedly failing to brake or otherwise avoid the collision ( see Rieman v. Smith, supra; Szczotka v. Adler, supra; Agin v. Rehfeldt, 284 A.D.2d 352; Borst v. Sunnydale Farms, 258 A.D.2d 488).

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Torro v. Schiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 2004
8 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Torro v. Schiller

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA TORRO, respondent, v. MORRIS SCHILLER, ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Jun 7, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
777 N.Y.S.2d 915

Citing Cases

Sirlin v. Schreib

Consequently, “[t]o prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging…

Ramme v. Giugliano

The Court in Gabler v. Marly Bldg. Supply Corp., 27 A.D.3d 519, 520, 813 N.Y.S.2d 120 (App Div 2d Dep't…