Lawton v. Holt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawton v. Holt

238 A.D.2d 218, 656 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3917

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

DecidedApril 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 218 (Lawton v. Holt) 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

Lawton v. Holt, 238 A.D.2d 218, 656 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 2,1996, which, in an action arising out of an automobile accident, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s fault for the accident is conclusively established by the uncontested evidence that his car skidded over the double yellow lines separating eastbound from westbound traffic and crashed into defendant’s truck, which was lawfully proceeding in an eastbound lane of traffic. No issue of fact is raised by plaintiffs claim that he saw truck lights swerving into his path just before the accident. The skid marks from plaintiffs car and the position of both vehicles immediately after the accident two lanes over from the yellow lines preclude any possibility that defendant’s vehicle had veered into plaintiffs lane (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 2,1996, which, in an action arising out of an automobile accident, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s fault for the accident is conclusively established by the uncontested evidence that his car skidded over the double yellow lines separating eastbound from westbound traffic and crashed into defendant’s truck, which was lawfully proceeding in an eastbound lane of traffic. No issue of fact is raised by plaintiffs claim that he saw truck lights swerving into his path just before the accident. The skid marks from plaintiffs car and the position of both vehicles immediately after the accident two lanes over from the yellow lines preclude any possibility that defendant’s vehicle had veered into plaintiffs lane (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 218, 656 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawton-v-holt-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack