In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their motion demonstrated that the defendant failed to properly observe and yield to cross traffic before proceeding into the intersection (see Czarnecki v Corso, 81 AD3d 774, 775 Mohammad v Ning, 72 AD3d 913, 914 Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687). The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant’s vehicle proceeded into an intersection controlled by a stop sign without yielding the right-of-way to their approaching vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142). In an order dated March 16, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In April 2011, the plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. At the time of the accident, the defendant was traveling on a road which was controlled by a stop sign at the subject intersection, while the plaintiffs were traveling on an intersecting road, which was not controlled by any traffic device. This appeal arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on November 5, 2010, at an intersection in Brooklyn, when a vehicle operated by the defendant collided with a vehicle operated by the plaintiff Jerry Amalfitano, in which the plaintiff Mary Amalfitano was a passenger. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated March 16, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. ![]() Rauchberg, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellants.īaxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. ![]() ![]() This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.Īmalfitano v Rocco 2012-03451 2012 NY Slip Op 08084 “Decided on November 28, 2012ĪPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Table of 2012 November New York Appellate Division Cases (Already Published-NOT TO BE USED IN LITIGATION)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |