You are here: / / A DRIVER WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATE OTHER DRIVERS...
,

A DRIVER WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATE OTHER DRIVERS WILL OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS REQUIRING THEM TO YIELD; HERE DEFENDANT ENTERED AN INTERSECTION WITH A GREEN LIGHT AND PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF HIM; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant driver demonstrated he had the right-of-way when he entered the intersection with and green light and plaint made a left turn in front of him. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

“A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way” … . “Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he had the right-of-way, the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way, and the defendant did not have sufficient time to react in order to avoid the collision … . The defendant, as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that the plaintiff would obey the traffic laws which required her to yield … . Smith v Trail, 2023 NY Slip Op 06070, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: A driver who fails to take evasive action can be contributorily negligent. But here defendant entered the intersection with a green light and plaintiff made a left turn in front of him. Plaintiff did not raise a question of fact whether defendant had time to take evasive action.

 

You might also like
THE LANGUAGE OF THE EASEMENT CREATED AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER THE EASEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED TO ACCESS A PUBLIC ROAD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).
APPARENTLY THE MORTGAGOR WAS DECEASED AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED RENDERING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, SO AMENDING THE CAPTION TO ADD THE EXECUTOR DID NOT EFFECTUATE JURISDICTION OVER THE ESTATE; ECHO BAY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE MORTGAGOR’S SUCCESSORS FOUR YEARS LATER; ECHO BAY HAD THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE, MOVE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE, AND MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
20 POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7 (RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM) BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS NOT A STRANGER; ALTHOUGH SUBTRACTING 20 POINTS WOULD RESULT IN A LEVEL TWO SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE THE PEOPLE INDICATED IF DEFENDANT WAS NOT DESIGNATED A LEVEL THREE OFFENDER THEY WOULD SEEK AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
Orange County Executive Did Not Have Authority to Terminate County Employees Before County Legislature Eliminated Positions
FORMAL ADMISSIONS, INFORMAL ADMISSIONS AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER, WHO LIVES IN CALIFORNIA, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER; MOTHER, WHO LIVES IN NEW YORK, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IN NEW YORK; FAMILY COURT CORRECTLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COURT BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE PARTIES TO PRESENT FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE NEW YORK PETITION; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (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 UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND...