You are here: / / DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, FAILED TO YIELD...
,

DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant failed to yield the right of way when entering the roadway from a parking lot:

“It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield. Because [defendant] was entering the roadway from a parking lot, []he was required to yield the right-of-way to [plaintiff’s] vehicle” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143). Here, plaintiffs met their initial burden of proof with respect to defendant’s negligence by submitting, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony recounting the circumstances of the accident and the corroborating police report, which established as a matter of law that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143, breached his duty to operate his vehicle with due care, and thereby caused the accident … .

… Defendant’s claimed inability to recall the circumstances of the accident “is not affirmative proof that the event did not happen[ and is] . . . thus insufficient to create an issue of fact” … . Moreover, while defendant made inconsistent statements about his actions before pulling into the street from the parking lot, those statements offered no basis for a rational factfinder to excuse his violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 or negate his responsibility for the accident … . Kowalyk v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05346, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

You might also like
AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS ONE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; THEREFORE THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DWI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WHICH MUST BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CAR DEALERSHIP OWNED THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF, ITS SALESMAN, WAS INJURED DURING A TEST DRIVE; THE DEALERSHIP, AS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
SHIFTING BURDENS OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS CLARIFIED; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THEORIES OF LIABILITY REFUTED BY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF THOSE THEORIES (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW OF A ONE-DAY SQUIRREL-HUNTING FUND-RAISING EVENT (FOURTH 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

EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE INSURED’S WATER-DAMAGE... DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING...