You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED...

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had the right of way when defendant (Mack) turned on his turn signal and attempted a u-turn. Plaintiff had only one or two seconds to react and was not, therefore, comparatively negligent:

​

The plaintiff established that he was traveling with the right-of-way when Mack, who had stopped in a parking or merging lane to the right of the plaintiff’s lane of travel, suddenly attempted to make a U-turn in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Although Mack testified at his deposition that he had activated his left-turn signal before he began to move his vehicle, the plaintiff, who had the right-of-way, was nevertheless entitled to anticipate that Mack would obey the traffic law requiring him to yield … . The plaintiff testified at his deposition that only one or two seconds passed between the time Mack’s vehicle suddenly pulled out and the collision, such that, while he attempted to brake and veer to the left, he could not avoid the collision. Indeed, Mack admitted that only a “[s]plit second” passed between the time he moved his vehicle and the 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” … . Criollo v Maggies Paratransit Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 07704, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH KERRY K WAS ORDERED RELEASED UNDER STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT PURSUANT TO THE FIRST MENTAL HYGIENE LAW CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL, AFTER KERRY K’S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL HE WAS PROPERLY ORDERED RE-CONFINED PENDING THE SECOND TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT).
In an Appeal from an Order Made Upon Appellant’s Default, Only Matters Contested Below Can Be Heard—Here the Only Matter Contested Below Was Appellants’ Request for an Adjournment to Obtain New Counsel—Relevant Review Criteria Explained
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND BISHME’S DAUGHTER TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED BASED UPON BISHME’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
QUEENS COUNTY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE NASSAU COUNTY ACTION, A CORPORATION IS NOT THE SAME PARTY AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE CORPORATION WITHOUT A SHOWING THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED (SECOND DEPT).
NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT).
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1)... DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER...