Ishak v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ishak v. State

283 A.D.2d 610, 725 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

DocketClaim No. 90867

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 610 (Ishak v. State) 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

Ishak v. State, 283 A.D.2d 610, 725 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (O’Rourke, J.), dated November 5, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from a decision of the Court of Claims dated September 24, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant claim arises out of a motor vehicle accident on Route 6 on May 24, 1992. The decedent, Fayza Ishak, was driving her vehicle on the eastbound side of the highway when a Ford Taurus from the westbound side of the highway crossed over the double yellow line and entered her lane of travel. The decedent was killed on impact. According to an eyewitness, the Ford Taurus crossed over the double yellow line to pass a slower-moving vehicle. The claimant alleged that the accident was caused by the existence of a confusing traffic sign. Following a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the Court of Claims [611]*611found that the sign conformed to traffic regulations in effect at the time the roadway was constructed, and assuming that the sign was confusing, it was not a proximate cause of the accident. We affirm.

Even if, as the appellant contends, the subject sign was confusing, he failed to offer sufficient evidence that its design was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Davenport v County of Nassau, 279 AD2d 497).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (O’Rourke, J.), dated November 5, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from a decision of the Court of Claims dated September 24, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant claim arises out of a motor vehicle accident on Route 6 on May 24, 1992. The decedent, Fayza Ishak, was driving her vehicle on the eastbound side of the highway when a Ford Taurus from the westbound side of the highway crossed over the double yellow line and entered her lane of travel. The decedent was killed on impact. According to an eyewitness, the Ford Taurus crossed over the double yellow line to pass a slower-moving vehicle. The claimant alleged that the accident was caused by the existence of a confusing traffic sign. Following a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the Court of Claims [611]*611found that the sign conformed to traffic regulations in effect at the time the roadway was constructed, and assuming that the sign was confusing, it was not a proximate cause of the accident. We affirm.

Even if, as the appellant contends, the subject sign was confusing, he failed to offer sufficient evidence that its design was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Davenport v County of Nassau, 279 AD2d 497).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 610, 725 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ishak-v-state-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack