You are here: / / THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO...
,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted summary judgment. Plaintiff motorcyclist collided with defendants’ vehicle as defendant driver was attempting to make a left turn crossing plaintiff’s lane of traffic. The Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff’s motorcycle was so close as to constitute an immediate hazard at the time defendant initiated the turn:

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 plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the transcripts of his deposition testimony and that of the defendants. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants, as the nonmoving parties, raised triable issues of fact as to whether, at the time the defendant driver initiated her turn, the plaintiff’s motorcycle was “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . DePass v Beneduci, 2022 NY Slip Op 04622, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Vehicle and Traffic Law 1141 prohibits making a left turn when oncoming traffic is “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” Plaintiff motorcyclist collided with defendant’s car as defendant attempted a left turn across plaintiff’s lane of traffic. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment but the Second Department held there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was ‘”so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” when defendant initiated her turn.

 

You might also like
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED.
PROOF OF POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WAS HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET LOADING DOCK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-322.1 (1) APPLIES ONLY TO NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING, NOT TO CLEANING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; THEREFORE, A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPRL 2221(A) IS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO FATHER’S ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM FATHER’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION PENDING A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PROCEDURAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL... ALTHOUGH THE STEP WAS MARKED AND THERE WAS A WARNING SIGN, THERE WAS EVIDENCE...