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
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.
Statement About Gang Affiliation Should Have Been Suppressed—Not Merely “Pedigree” Information
Although the Town Code Imposes a Duty on Abutting Property Owners to Keep Sidewalks in Good Repair, It Does Not Impose Tort Liability On Abutting Property Owners for a Violation of that Duty
Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Transferred
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A SUPPRESSION RULING GROUNDED ON A THEORY NOT RELIED UPON OR ARGUED BY THE PARTIES AS LONG AS THE RULING IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND IS FULLY LAID OUT AND EXPLAINED BY THE MOTION COURT; HERE THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (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...