Law v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Law v. New York City Transit Authority

279 A.D.2d 325, 719 N.Y.S.2d 54, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 426

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 325 (Law v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Law v. New York City Transit Authority, 279 A.D.2d 325, 719 N.Y.S.2d 54, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered June 30, 1999, dismissing the complaint at the close of evidence for failure to make out a prima facie case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even assuming that defendant City was negligent in its placement of traffic control signs at the intersection where the accident occurred, the evidence fails to show that such negligence proximately caused the accident. The accident occurred when an unidentified hit-and-run driver illegally changed into plaintiffs’ right-hand lane of traffic from a left-turn-only lane of traffic. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that the hit- and-run driver’s illegal change of lanes was impelled by his sudden and unexpected finding that he was in the wrong lane because of signs that did not give sufficient advance notice that vehicles in the left-hand lane must turn left. This was impermissible speculation where the only evidence of the other driver’s actions was plaintiffs’ testimony acknowledging unawareness of the other driver’s presence until he came up along side plaintiffs’ vehicle on the left and moved ahead. There is no reason to assume the signs had causal effect on this particular accident (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 645-646). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered June 30, 1999, dismissing the complaint at the close of evidence for failure to make out a prima facie case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even assuming that defendant City was negligent in its placement of traffic control signs at the intersection where the accident occurred, the evidence fails to show that such negligence proximately caused the accident. The accident occurred when an unidentified hit-and-run driver illegally changed into plaintiffs’ right-hand lane of traffic from a left-turn-only lane of traffic. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that the hit- and-run driver’s illegal change of lanes was impelled by his sudden and unexpected finding that he was in the wrong lane because of signs that did not give sufficient advance notice that vehicles in the left-hand lane must turn left. This was impermissible speculation where the only evidence of the other driver’s actions was plaintiffs’ testimony acknowledging unawareness of the other driver’s presence until he came up along side plaintiffs’ vehicle on the left and moved ahead. There is no reason to assume the signs had causal effect on this particular accident (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 645-646). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 325, 719 N.Y.S.2d 54, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack