You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT...
,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant, Stewart, opened the door of his van and plaintiff could not avoid striking the door. Stewart raised questions of fact about whether he was negligent and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent:

The assertions made in Stewart’s affidavit, if credited, would support a finding that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle close to the parked vehicles, at a relatively high rate of speed, and possibly under the influence of alcohol, and he failed to perceive and avoid the van door, which had been open for as long as five seconds … .

… Stewart averred that, before opening the van door, he looked in his side-view mirror, where he was able to see the entire northbound lane for approximately 200 feet behind him, and he saw nothing approaching. Approximately five seconds later, the plaintiff’s bicycle collided with the van door. These averments were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Stewart failed to see what, by the reasonable use of his senses, he should have seen, and whether he opened the van door when it was not reasonably safe to do so … . Tucubal v National Express Tr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05731, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, at the summary judgment stage, if defendant raises questions of fact about whether he/she was negligent and whether plaintiff was negligent, summary judgment should not be granted to plaintiff and the comparative negligence affirmative defense should not be dismissed.

 

You might also like
Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE CITY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, THE PLAINTIFFS, YEARS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED, MOVED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SETTLE THE ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERED THE ACTION ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,” PETITIONER-POLICE-DEPARTMENT FILED A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63-A WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED ON THE GROUND THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND VIOLENT CONDUCT MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​
RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (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

IN A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TRIAL, IT IS IMPROPER TO DETERMINE ADDITIONAL LABOR... THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED...