You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE...

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff driver, determined that, although plaintiff had the right of way, he did not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this car-bus collision case. A driver with the right of way still has the obligation to see what is there to be seen and to take evasive action:

​

Although the operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the operator with the right-of-way also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout to see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … . Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … .

Here, Mark [plaintiff] failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion and cross motion, Mark submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether Mark failed to see what was there to be seen and failed to take evasive actions to avoid the collision between his vehicle and the bus… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion and cross motion without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . Mark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03940, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED

You might also like
Six-Year Delay in Raising Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Waived the Objection​
Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) and Town’s Ruling on Proper Remedial Measures for a Hazardous Waste Site Was Restarted When a Different Factual Presentation Was Invited
IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE ACTION IN AN IMPROPER VENUE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS SIX DAYS LATE; SUPREME COURT IMPROVIDENTLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF PHARMACY COULD SEEK PAYMENT OF PRESCRIPTIONS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (WCB) HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
WORKER STRUCK BY DEBRIS WHICH FELL THROUGH A GAP IN PROTECTIVE NETTING ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (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

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED,... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE...