Barrette v. Vicente

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrette v. Vicente

137 A.D.3d 599, 26 N.Y.S.3d 700

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

Docket555 20344/12

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 599 (Barrette v. Vicente) 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

Barrette v. Vicente, 137 A.D.3d 599, 26 N.Y.S.3d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 23, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that defendant, while driving in the center lane of the Grand Concourse, first saw plaintiff a “millisecond” before impact, when he was approximately one car length away from plaintiff. Defendant, who was traveling below the 30-mile-per-hour speed limit, swerved his car to the right, moving into the outermost lane of travel, avoiding full-on impact with plaintiff. However, the rear tire of defendant’s car ran over plaintiff’s foot. The record further shows that plaintiff was dressed in dark clothing from head to foot, was attempting to cross the Grand Concourse at night while outside of a crosswalk, and stepped directly in front of defendant’s vehicle. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was warranted (see Ramirez v Molina, 114 AD3d 540 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 23, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that defendant, while driving in the center lane of the Grand Concourse, first saw plaintiff a “millisecond” before impact, when he was approximately one car length away from plaintiff. Defendant, who was traveling below the 30-mile-per-hour speed limit, swerved his car to the right, moving into the outermost lane of travel, avoiding full-on impact with plaintiff. However, the rear tire of defendant’s car ran over plaintiff’s foot. The record further shows that plaintiff was dressed in dark clothing from head to foot, was attempting to cross the Grand Concourse at night while outside of a crosswalk, and stepped directly in front of defendant’s vehicle. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was warranted (see Ramirez v Molina, 114 AD3d 540 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 599, 26 N.Y.S.3d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrette-v-vicente-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack