Abboud v. Pawelec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abboud v. Pawelec

141 A.D.3d 438, 33 N.Y.S.3d 901, 2016 WL 3619916

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 7, 2016

Docket1690 150966/13

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 A.D.3d 438 (Abboud v. Pawelec) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abboud v. Pawelec, 141 A.D.3d 438, 33 N.Y.S.3d 901, 2016 WL 3619916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, in this action where plaintiff’s vehicle collided with the vehicle operated by defendant Ludwik Pawelec when Pawelec, who was traveling in the opposite direction, made a left turn across the path of plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff submitted evidence showing that Pawelec was negligent by making a left turn without ensuring that it was safe to do so (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; Foreman v *439 Skeif, 115 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2014]), and by failing “to see that which, through the proper use of senses, should have been seen” (Berner v Koegel, 31 AD3d 591, 592 [2d Dept 2006]; see Griffin v Pennoyer, 49 AD3d 341, 342 [1st Dept 2008]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants did not offer admissible evidence supporting their assertion that plaintiff could have avoided the collision (see Sarac-Marshall v Mikalopas, 125 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, in this action where plaintiff’s vehicle collided with the vehicle operated by defendant Ludwik Pawelec when Pawelec, who was traveling in the opposite direction, made a left turn across the path of plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff submitted evidence showing that Pawelec was negligent by making a left turn without ensuring that it was safe to do so (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; Foreman v *439 Skeif, 115 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2014]), and by failing “to see that which, through the proper use of senses, should have been seen” (Berner v Koegel, 31 AD3d 591, 592 [2d Dept 2006]; see Griffin v Pennoyer, 49 AD3d 341, 342 [1st Dept 2008]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants did not offer admissible evidence supporting their assertion that plaintiff could have avoided the collision (see Sarac-Marshall v Mikalopas, 125 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 438, 33 N.Y.S.3d 901, 2016 WL 3619916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abboud-v-pawelec-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack