Cenovski v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cenovski v. Lee

266 A.D.2d 424, 698 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12037

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 424 (Cenovski v. Lee) 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

Cenovski v. Lee, 266 A.D.2d 424, 698 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated December 3, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Matt v Tricil [N. Y.], 260 AD2d 811). Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence establishes that the plaintiff Namik Cenovski was negligent, as a matter of law, when he failed to yield the right-of-way to the defendant in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (b) (see, Nunziata v Birchell, 238 AD2d 555; Anastasio v Scheer, 239 AD2d 823; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549). The defendant, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that Cenovski would obey traffic laws which required him to yield (see, Namisnak v Martin, supra). Finally, the record does not support the plaintiffs’ contention that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant was negligent in the operation of his truck (see, Matt v Tricil [N. Y.], supra; Namisnak v Martin, supra; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., supra). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated December 3, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Matt v Tricil [N. Y.], 260 AD2d 811). Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence establishes that the plaintiff Namik Cenovski was negligent, as a matter of law, when he failed to yield the right-of-way to the defendant in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (b) (see, Nunziata v Birchell, 238 AD2d 555; Anastasio v Scheer, 239 AD2d 823; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549). The defendant, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that Cenovski would obey traffic laws which required him to yield (see, Namisnak v Martin, supra). Finally, the record does not support the plaintiffs’ contention that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant was negligent in the operation of his truck (see, Matt v Tricil [N. Y.], supra; Namisnak v Martin, supra; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., supra). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 424, 698 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cenovski-v-lee-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack