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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NO LONGER NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted the plaintiff in a traffic accident case no longer has to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to warrant summary judgment:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of defendants by submitting an affidavit stating that as she was driving through the intersection she noticed that defendant driver failed to stop at the stop sign when plaintiff had the right of way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a]). Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate her own freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment as to defendants’ liability … . Garcia v McCrea, 2019 NY Slip Op 01842, First Dept 3-14-19

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT SURGEON’S TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HABIT EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE DEFENSE EXPERT, WHO RELIED ON THE INSUFFICIENT HABIT EVIDENCE, DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; EVEN IF SUFFICIENT, HABIT EVIDENCE ONLY RAISES AN INFERENCE FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER, IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH WHAT PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AS A MATTER OF LAW; NEW EVIDENCE RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER ENFORCING THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE THIS EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS INVOLVED, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PURSUING HIS CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROOF PRESENTED BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AT THE FIRST HEARING AND CONSIDERED “NEW” FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).
Spoliation of Evidence.
SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT).
VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES.
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

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 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE... CHILD’S INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY STRICKEN IN A FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 PROCEEDING...