You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS,...
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant driver (Gould) who collided with another defendant driver (Pappas) who had failed to yield the right-of-way was not entitled to summary judgment, noting that there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident:

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident'” … , and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

While the driver with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the driver with the right-of-way also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout and see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … .

The Gould defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cross claims asserted against them. While they submitted evidence that the Pappas vehicle failed to yield the right-of-way to their vehicle, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), the submissions in support of their motion failed to establish the Gould defendants’ freedom from fault and that the Pappas vehicle’s failure to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Based on their submissions, which included the deposition transcripts of the respective parties, the Gould defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Gould took reasonable care to avoid the collision … . Miron v Pappas, 2018 NY Slip Op 03672, Second Dept 5-23-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE DID NOT HAVE HIS EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE TRUCK INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER’S INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO THE EXTENT THE AMENDMENT AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS ALREADY MADE WITHOUT OBJECTION IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).
Attorney-Defendants Demonstrated the Dismissal of the Complaint Was an Error Which Would Have Been Corrected Had the Plaintiffs Appealed—Therefore There Was No Question of Fact Whether the Actions of the Attorneys Constituted the Proximate Cause of the Damages Alleged
PETITIONER’S INCAPACITATING INJURIES EXCUSED THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, IT SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN INADMISSIBLE FORM AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE CONDITIONS IN THE MORTGAGE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO CUSTODY AS SOLE SURVIVING PARENT, HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ENTITLE HER CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING, HEARING ORDERED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE,... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING...