Gabrielli v. Biro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gabrielli v. Biro

140 A.D.2d 948, 529 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5775

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

DecidedMay 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 948 (Gabrielli v. Biro) 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

Gabrielli v. Biro, 140 A.D.2d 948, 529 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The trial court erred when despite timely objection, it instructed the jury that plaintiff was negligent when she failed to stop at the stop sign at the intersection of St. Paul Street and Lockport Road. Because conflicting evidence was presented on the issue of whether plaintiff stopped at the stop sign, it presented an issue of fact for the jury’s determination. It was also error for the court to refuse plaintiff’s request to charge Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a) and (e) and to charge the jury that defendant did not violate any law. As defendant approached this intersection, she accelerated and pulled into the oncoming lane of traffic to pass a slow-moving van. She further testified that her view of the intersection was blocked. Plaintiff, who was crossing the intersection on her bicycle in front of the van, was struck in the intersection by defendant’s vehicle. From these facts, the jury could determine that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a) and (e) by driving her vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent when entering this intersection. Further, the court should have- charged those portions of PJI 2.80 requested by plaintiff (Sontag v Mulkerin, 63 AD2d 699). We have examined plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Sedita, J. — negligence.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Den-man, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The trial court erred when despite timely objection, it instructed the jury that plaintiff was negligent when she failed to stop at the stop sign at the intersection of St. Paul Street and Lockport Road. Because conflicting evidence was presented on the issue of whether plaintiff stopped at the stop sign, it presented an issue of fact for the jury’s determination. It was also error for the court to refuse plaintiff’s request to charge Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a) and (e) and to charge the jury that defendant did not violate any law. As defendant approached this intersection, she accelerated and pulled into the oncoming lane of traffic to pass a slow-moving van. She further testified that her view of the intersection was blocked. Plaintiff, who was crossing the intersection on her bicycle in front of the van, was struck in the intersection by defendant’s vehicle. From these facts, the jury could determine that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a) and (e) by driving her vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent when entering this intersection. Further, the court should have- charged those portions of PJI 2.80 requested by plaintiff (Sontag v Mulkerin, 63 AD2d 699). We have examined plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Sedita, J. — negligence.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Den-man, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 948, 529 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabrielli-v-biro-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack