Marte v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marte v. City of New York

92 A.D.3d 618, 939 N.Y.2d 401

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 618 (Marte v. City of New York) 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

Marte v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 618, 939 N.Y.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff had the right-of-way when she was hit by a bus (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [a] [1]; § 1112 [a]; see also Calcano v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d 468, 468-469 [2012]). Although a nonparty witness asserted in an affidavit that plaintiff “had the green/walk signal and was walking within the crosswalk” when she was hit by the bus, defendant bus driver testified that she was about a car length south of the crosswalk when she was hit. At this procedural posture, the truth of the bus driver’s testimony is presumed “where the court’s duty is to find issues rather than determine them” (see Arias v Skyline Windows, Inc., 89 AD3d 460 [2011], citing Powell v HIS Contrs., Inc., 75 AD3d 463, 465 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32494(11).]

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

An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff had the right-of-way when she was hit by a bus (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [a] [1]; § 1112 [a]; see also Calcano v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d 468, 468-469 [2012]). Although a nonparty witness asserted in an affidavit that plaintiff “had the green/walk signal and was walking within the crosswalk” when she was hit by the bus, defendant bus driver testified that she was about a car length south of the crosswalk when she was hit. At this procedural posture, the truth of the bus driver’s testimony is presumed “where the court’s duty is to find issues rather than determine them” (see Arias v Skyline Windows, Inc., 89 AD3d 460 [2011], citing Powell v HIS Contrs., Inc., 75 AD3d 463, 465 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32494(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 618, 939 N.Y.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marte-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack