Grant v. Piniero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Piniero

215 A.D.2d 144, 626 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785

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

DecidedMay 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 144 (Grant v. Piniero) 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

Grant v. Piniero, 215 A.D.2d 144, 626 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 28, 1993, which granted defendant LaTorre’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against him, and the cross motions by the Piniero defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion by Maxine Piniero is denied, the complaint is reinstated as against that defendant, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was approaching the intersection of 23rd Street [145]*145and 11th Avenue in the right-hand lane, behind defendant Maxine Piniero’s truck, when his motorcycle glanced off defendant LaTorre’s vehicle in the left-hand lane and struck the truck. After plaintiff was thrown to the ground, his motorcycle went on to collide with defendant Johnny Piniero’s motorcycle, which was preceding the truck in the right-hand lane.

Despite plaintiff’s deposition testimony that only one second elapsed between the moment defendant Maxine Piniero’s brake lights lit up and the first impact, the IAS Court could properly conclude, from the evidence in the record of the heavy, slow-moving, stop-and-go traffic at the intersection, that plaintiff had failed to establish a claim of an improper "short stop” on the part of the truck driver. However, the IAS Court failed to address the allegation that the Piniero defendants were in the process of making a left turn (onto a 2-way avenue) from the right-hand lane (of a 2-way street), which would be a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160. The Police Accident Report listed "Turning Improperly” as one of the "apparent contributing factors” to the accident. Even though no summonses were issued to the Pinieros, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether an improper left turn by the truck immediately in front of plaintiff was a proximate cause of the accident. On this basis, summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant Maxine Piniero. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 28, 1993, which granted defendant LaTorre’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against him, and the cross motions by the Piniero defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion by Maxine Piniero is denied, the complaint is reinstated as against that defendant, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was approaching the intersection of 23rd Street [145]*145and 11th Avenue in the right-hand lane, behind defendant Maxine Piniero’s truck, when his motorcycle glanced off defendant LaTorre’s vehicle in the left-hand lane and struck the truck. After plaintiff was thrown to the ground, his motorcycle went on to collide with defendant Johnny Piniero’s motorcycle, which was preceding the truck in the right-hand lane.

Despite plaintiff’s deposition testimony that only one second elapsed between the moment defendant Maxine Piniero’s brake lights lit up and the first impact, the IAS Court could properly conclude, from the evidence in the record of the heavy, slow-moving, stop-and-go traffic at the intersection, that plaintiff had failed to establish a claim of an improper "short stop” on the part of the truck driver. However, the IAS Court failed to address the allegation that the Piniero defendants were in the process of making a left turn (onto a 2-way avenue) from the right-hand lane (of a 2-way street), which would be a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160. The Police Accident Report listed "Turning Improperly” as one of the "apparent contributing factors” to the accident. Even though no summonses were issued to the Pinieros, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether an improper left turn by the truck immediately in front of plaintiff was a proximate cause of the accident. On this basis, summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant Maxine Piniero. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 144, 626 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-piniero-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack