Cullipher v. Traffic Markings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cullipher v. Traffic Markings, Inc.

259 A.D.2d 991, 689 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 991 (Cullipher v. Traffic Markings, Inc.) 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

Cullipher v. Traffic Markings, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 991, 689 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint and cross claims reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Traffic Markings, Inc. (Traffic Markings) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it. On August 19, 1992, several employees of Traffic Markings were working at the intersection of Route 92 and Woodchuck Hill Road repainting the traffic lanes. Defendant Michael E. Niles, II, who was operating his vehicle eastbound on Route 92, maintains that an employee of Traffic [992]*992Markings directed him into the left turn lane. Plaintiff, who was proceeding westerly on Route 92, collided with the Niles vehicle. We conclude that plaintiff and Niles have raised a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of Traffic Markings at the intersection under its control was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Murphy v Omer Constr. Co., 242 AD2d 964, 966). The issue of proximate cause is generally for the finder of fact to resolve (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315, rearg denied 52 NY2d 784; Hughes v City of Niagara Falls, 245 AD2d 1118). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mor due, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint and cross claims reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Traffic Markings, Inc. (Traffic Markings) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it. On August 19, 1992, several employees of Traffic Markings were working at the intersection of Route 92 and Woodchuck Hill Road repainting the traffic lanes. Defendant Michael E. Niles, II, who was operating his vehicle eastbound on Route 92, maintains that an employee of Traffic [992]*992Markings directed him into the left turn lane. Plaintiff, who was proceeding westerly on Route 92, collided with the Niles vehicle. We conclude that plaintiff and Niles have raised a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of Traffic Markings at the intersection under its control was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Murphy v Omer Constr. Co., 242 AD2d 964, 966). The issue of proximate cause is generally for the finder of fact to resolve (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315, rearg denied 52 NY2d 784; Hughes v City of Niagara Falls, 245 AD2d 1118). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mor due, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 991, 689 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullipher-v-traffic-markings-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack