You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141...
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff made out a prima facie case, alleging the defendant, without warning, made a left turn in front of him in violation of Vehicle and Traffic law 1141, defendant raised a question of fact about whether she violated the statute by averring plaintiff was driving too fast:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se … . …

The defendant driver averred that, as she approached the intersection, she slowed her vehicle, activated her left hand turn signal, and “looked to ensure that the roadway was clear.” As she was in the process of turning, she noticed the plaintiff’s vehicle for the first time and observed it traveling toward her at such an excessive rate of speed that she was unable to avoid the impact. The foregoing was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether, at the time the defendant driver initiated her turn, the plaintiff’s vehicle was “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . Brodney v Picinic, 2019 NY Slip Op 03314, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

You might also like
Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial of Mother’s Petition for Custody Reversed
Flight Provided Justification for Pursuit.
Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the 90-Day Period for Filing a Note of Issue
Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL;” THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS WERE TREATED ONLY ON THE DAY OF THEIR INJURIES, LOST NO WORK AND HAD NO OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES; THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICAL BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

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

ABUTTING LANDOWNER HAS NO DUTY TO MAINTAIN A TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S... ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS...