You are here: / / DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED...

DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED THE ROADWAY BLOCKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Defendant driver (Kim) had only two seconds to react when a forklift entered the roadway blocking the right-of-way:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . 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 … . A driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found partially responsible for an accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident. “Although a driver with a right-of-way . . . 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, Kim established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the driver of the forklift negligently entered the roadway mid-block from in front of a parked truck without yielding the right-of-way to Kim, and that such negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The evidence submitted in support of the motion … demonstrated that Kim had, at most, two seconds to react before the forklift struck the passenger side of his vehicle. Thus, Kim demonstrated that he was not negligent for failing to avoid colliding with the forklift … . Jeong Sook Lee-Son v Doe, 2019 NY Slip Op 02073, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST PHYSICAL-THERAPY DEFENDANTS SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REQUIRING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; THE DOCTRINE OF OSTENSIBLE OR APPARENT AGENCY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PHYSICAL-THERAPY FACILITY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE THERAPIST, WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF STANDING, WHICH IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL AND COULD NOT BE RAISED BY A DEFAULTING DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENDANT, WAS ERROR, UNDER THE FACTS, IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR.
BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DISCOVERY STATUTE MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained
BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS... DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL...