You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED...

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's (Bishop's) motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this intersection traffic accident case. The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger (Pulinario) failed to stop at a stop sign. No question of fact was raised about Bishop's comparative negligence:

Bishop met her prima facie burden for summary judgment by demonstrating that Pulinario was negligent as a matter of law, and that Bishop was not negligently operating her vehicle. Bishop and plaintiff testified that Pulinario failed to stop for a stop sign, which is a violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a), which constitutes negligence as a matter of law… . Bishop, who had the right of way, was ” entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield,' and ha[d] no duty to watch for and avoid a driver who might fail to stop . . . at a stop sign'” … .

Although a driver lawfully entering an intersection may still be found partially at fault for an accident if he or she fails to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle in the intersection … , plaintiff and Pulinario failed to raise a triable material issue of fact as to whether Bishop was negligent. The evasive measures that Bishop took during the less than three seconds before impact did not constitute negligence, “under the emergency-like circumstances confronting her” … . Gonzalez v Bishop, 2018 NY Slip Op 00095, First Dept 1-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELT HIS ARM SNAP WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LIFT A 400 POUND ELEVATOR PLATFORM FOUR OR FIVE INCHES TO PLACE A PALLET JACK UNDER IT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER.
Reopening of Suppression Hearing to Address Deficiency in People’s Case (Pointed Out by the Defense in Post-Hearing Papers) Okay (But See People v Kevin W, 187, Ct App 11-21-13)
A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED.
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EASEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED IN PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CHAIN OF TITLE, IT WAS INDEXED UNDER A BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER SYSTEM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE EASEMENT AND WAS NOT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK NEVER REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT; FIFTH FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE... EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND...