You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO...
,

PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendants were in the far right lane when plaintiff attempted to turn right from the center lane, crossing in front of defendants:

​

[The] evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128(a) and 1163, and that defendant driver was free from fault in the happening of the accident … . This evidence also demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the subject accident.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s affidavit, which contradicted admissions he made in the certified motor vehicle report, was insufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because it merely raised what appear to be feigned issues of fact … . Park v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08279, Second Dept 11-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENCE,  PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED.
“Whistleblower Statute” Cause of Action Should Have Survived the Motion to Dismiss—No Need to Cite Particular Statute, Rule or Regulation Alleged to Have Been Violated by the Employer in the Complaint
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing Firms
Elements of False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Explained
Plaintiff Wife’s Waiver of Her Entitlement (Pursuant to a Divorce Stipulation) to Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) to Maintenance Payments (By Acceptance of Checks With No COLA for Years) Was Withdrawn In 2008 When She Commenced Suit to Enforce the COLA Provision of the Stipulation

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED... OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY) DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE...