You are here: / / DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT...

DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff moped operator should have been granted summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Defendant made a sudden left turn crossing plaintiff’s right of way:

The plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when he suddenly made a left turn directly into the path of the moped operated by the plaintiff, who had no time to avoid the impact, when it was not reasonably safe to do so, and that this violation was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Mei-Hua Gao v Makrinos, 2017 NY Slip Op 00639, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT STEMMED FROM HIS STRIKING AND SERIOUSLY INJURING AN EIGHT-POUND DOG; THERE WAS NO NEED TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; INDICTMENT REINSTATED OVER A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE ATTORNEY INDICATED THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
PLAINTIFF INSURER CAN SUE, AS A SUBROGEE, THE CLUB WHICH SERVED ALCOHOL TO ITS INSUREDS, WHO WERE VISIBLY INTOXICATED, PURSUANT TO THE DRAM SHOP ACT; THE INSUREDS WERE INJURED IN A SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT AND THE INSURER PAID OUT MORE THAN $500,000 (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
“Transacting Business” Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Met
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

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

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE... STUDENT INJURED HORSING AROUND IN GYM CLASS, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY...