You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE...

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff driver, determined that, although plaintiff had the right of way, he did not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this car-bus collision case. A driver with the right of way still has the obligation to see what is there to be seen and to take evasive action:

​

Although the operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the operator with the right-of-way also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout to see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … . Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … .

Here, Mark [plaintiff] failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion and cross motion, Mark submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether Mark failed to see what was there to be seen and failed to take evasive actions to avoid the collision between his vehicle and the bus… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion and cross motion without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . Mark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03940, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED

You might also like
MOTHER’S MOTION TO AMEND FAMILY COURT’S FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS AFTER THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES NOTIFIED THE CHILD THAT THE FINDINGS DID NOT ADDRESS THE CHILD’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE MS-13 GANG SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE ALLEGED FRAUD WHICH INDUCED HIM TO SIGN RELEASES; THEREFORE THIS FRUAD-BASED ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​
STATEMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED AN “AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE” FORM BEFORE REFUSING TREATMENT WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN MEDICAL RECORDS AND IN THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS BUSINESS RECORDS, AS ADMISSIONS, AS DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST, OR PURSUANT TO THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT.
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED,... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE...