You are here: / / FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET...

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET WHEN HE WAS STRUCK DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's complaint should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a forklift as he was riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street. Although plaintiff was negligent, the defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the forklift operator was free from negligence:

While the plaintiff was negligent in traveling the wrong way on a one-way street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1127[a]; 1231, 1234[a]), there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from fault in the happening of the accident … . Thus, the fact that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle in the wrong direction on a one-way street would not preclude a finding that negligence by the defendant's employee contributed to the accident … .

Here, the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing the forklift operator's freedom from fault in the happening of this accident as a matter of law … . The papers the defendant submitted in support of its motion demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the forklift operator failed to exercise due care before proceeding from the driveway onto the street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143, 1146[a]; 1173…). Nunez v Olympic Fence & Railing Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02791, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


You might also like
INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE WERE JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING A BICYCLIST WHO WAS WEAVING AND HOLDING A BULKY OBJECT IN HIS WAISTBAND; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
No Basis in Record for Denying Noncustodial Parent Visitation
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S PROOF OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected as Not Properly Before the Court (Raised for the First Time in Reply Papers) in the Original Motion
DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DIVORCE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO PAY THE CHILDREN’S COLLEGE EXPENSES FOR FOUR YEARS AND DID NOT MENTION AN AGE CUT-OFF; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATION CEASED AT AGE 21 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEPRESSED DRAIN NEAR CONDOMINIUM ENTRANCE WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFE... RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF...