You are here: / / DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED...

DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED THE ROADWAY BLOCKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Defendant driver (Kim) had only two seconds to react when a forklift entered the roadway blocking the right-of-way:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way … . A driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found partially responsible for an accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident. “Although a driver with a right-of-way . . . has a duty to …  use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

Here, Kim established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the driver of the forklift negligently entered the roadway mid-block from in front of a parked truck without yielding the right-of-way to Kim, and that such negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The evidence submitted in support of the motion … demonstrated that Kim had, at most, two seconds to react before the forklift struck the passenger side of his vehicle. Thus, Kim demonstrated that he was not negligent for failing to avoid colliding with the forklift … . Jeong Sook Lee-Son v Doe, 2019 NY Slip Op 02073, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.
IN DENYING THE STATE POLICE’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER (ERPO) AGAINST THE 18-YEAR-OLD RESPONDENT, THE JUDGE FOCUSED ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RESPONDENT HAD ACCESS TO FIREARMS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE RESPONDENT POSED A RISK OF SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE WERE WARRANTED; THE VIDEO FOOTAGE FOR THE DAY OF THE FALL HAD BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DELETED BEFORE THE PRESERVATION LETTER WAS RECEIVED; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS HAD PRESERVED 52 SECONDS OF VIDEO SHOWING JUST BEFORE THE FALL, THE FALL AND PLAINTIFF WALKING AWAY (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). ​
BECAUSE, BASED ON A LINE OF DUTY REPORT, THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER’S SLIP AND FALL, THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY A DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEWSPAPER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AND RECORDS CREATED BEFORE THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S PROOF OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INSUFFICIENT (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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS... DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL...