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
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; MONTHS LATER THE PEOPLE INDICTED THE DEFENDANT ON A MURDER CHARGE, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S CPL 40.40 MOTION TO DISMISS THE MURDER INDICTMENT; THERE WAS A STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Collapse of Makeshift Scaffold Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment in Labor Law 240(1) Action—Plaintiff’s Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense
Proof Requirements Re: Whether An Account Is Entirely Marital Property Explained
NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT).
THE INITIAL PROSECUTOR IN DEFENDANT’S CASE BECAME THE TRIAL JUDGE’S LAW CLERK; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED AND WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE WAIVER WAS NOT ‘KNOWINGLY’ AND ‘INTELLIGENTLY’ MADE (FOURTH DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD A HISTORY OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE SHE SIGNED WAS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Fall Into a Three-to-Four-Foot-Deep Hole Is Not an Elevation-Related Event Under Labor Law 240(1)

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...