You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT...
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN AND FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic-accident case should have been granted:

Plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment by averring that, at the time of the accident, their vehicle was traveling westbound through an intersection at 91st Avenue in Queens, when defendants’ vehicle failed to stop at a designated stop sign and struck the middle of the driver’s side of plaintiffs’ vehicle … . A presumption of negligence arises from the failure of a driver at a stop sign to yield the right of way to the vehicle on the highway in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 … . …

Defendants’ claim that defendant Bennett stopped at the stop sign, and checked for oncoming traffic but did not see plaintiffs’ vehicle until it suddenly appeared in front of her as she proceeded into the intersection, fails to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from her failure to yield the right of way to plaintiffs’ vehicle, but instead indicates that she was negligent in failing to see what was there to be seen … . Samnath v Lifespire Servs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02643, First Dept 4-21-22​

Practice Point: Failure to stop at a stop sign raises a presumption of negligence in an intersection traffic-accident case. Proceeding into the intersection and striking a car which has the right-of-way constituted a negligent failure to see what should have been seen.

 

You might also like
REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT WORK FOR; BASED ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, DAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY SUPREME COURT; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OVER A DISSENT, REVERSED, FINDING DAL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FIRST DEPT). ​
NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND FELL WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA OPINION INCLUDE: GENERAL CAUSATION; SPECIFIC CAUSATION; WHETHER THE CLOSING PREJUDICED THE JURY; AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST 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

A SUBSEQUENT INJURY TO THE SAME BODY “MEMBER” WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT... PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF...