You are here: / / PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN...

PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS FOUR CAR LENGTHS AWAY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WAS YELLOW DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff made a left turn in front of defendant. Plaintiff’s claim that defendant was proceeding through a yellow light did not raise a question of fact:

… [W]e conclude that the record establishes that plaintiff made a left turn in front of defendant’s oncoming vehicle, which was only four car lengths away from the intersection and traveling at the speed limit of 40 miles per hour. At that speed and distance, defendant entered the intersection with insufficient time to take evasive action to avoid the collision … . Thus, defendant’s vehicle was so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard to the left-turning plaintiff, and plaintiff was therefore required to yield the right-of-way to defendant (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141).

In addition, plaintiff’s assertion that the traffic light facing her vehicle had changed from green to yellow just before she started to make her left turn does not raise a question of fact inasmuch as a yellow light would not deprive defendant of the right-of-way and confer it upon plaintiff … . Godwin v Mancuso, 2019 NY Slip Op 02248, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

You might also like
AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENT MADE AFTER UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
FALL FROM TRUCK BED 20 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).
Courts’ Limited Review Powers Re: Administrative Rulings Clearly Illustrated
PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE.
Neglect Finding Cannot Be Based Upon Theoretical Future Harm
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS.
THE COVID-19 TOLLS SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY COMMENCED (FOURTH 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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THRESHOLD STRIP WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSE PLAINTIFF... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A DE...