You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TOO CLOSE IN THE ON-COMING LANE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver executed a left turn when plaintiff’s decedent, who apparently was being chased by police, was too close:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 provides that the ‘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'” … . The operator of an oncoming vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing operator will yield in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . A driver is negligent where he or she failed to see that which, through proper use of his or her senses, the driver should have seen … . “At the same time, a driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by [defendants] in support of their motion … failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [defendant driver] was free from fault in the happening of the accident and, if not, whether [plaintiff’s decedent’s] negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Specifically, a triable issue of fact exists, inter alia, as to whether, at the time [defendant driver] initiated her turn, [plaintiff’s decedent’s] vehicle was “‘so close as to constitute an immediate hazard'” … . Gaudio v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 08041, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE VILLAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUEST COULD NOT BE GRANTED WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL, THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT UNTIMELY (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.
General Obligations Law Prohibition of Indemnification Agreements Which Exempt a Lessor from Its Own Negligence Does Not Apply to a Commercial Lease Negotiated at Arm’s Length Between Sophisticated Parties With an Insurance Procurement Requirement
PLAINTIFF, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, ALLEGEDLY WAS ABUSED BY A PRIEST IN FLORIDA IN 1983 AND 1984; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN BECAUSE THE PRIEST WHO ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BROOKLYN TO FLORIDA, ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH CHILDREN; THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND THE BORROWING STATUTE DOES APPLY; THEREFORE FLORIDA’S FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Withdraw Its Admission that Its Employee Was Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When a Vehicle Accident Occurred

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

A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF... DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN...