Mazza v. Manzella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazza v. Manzella

49 A.D.3d 609, 854 N.Y.2d 424

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 609 (Mazza v. Manzella) 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

Mazza v. Manzella, 49 A.D.3d 609, 854 N.Y.2d 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[610]*610The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting proof that the infant plaintiff, who was riding a motorized bicycle, exited a driveway and collided into the defendant’s motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 and 1173 (see Yasinosky v Lenio, 28 AD3d 652, 653 [2006]; Lallemand v Cook, 23 AD3d 533 [2005]; Trzepacz v Jara, 11 AD3d 531 [2004]; Ferrara v Castro, 283 AD2d 392 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The fact that the infant plaintiff did not see the defendant’s approaching car does not excuse the infant plaintiffs conduct (see Ferrara v Castro, 283 AD2d at 393; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Furthermore, the infant plaintiffs affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s alleged failure to take evasive action (see McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721, 722 [2005]; Meliarenne v Prisco, 9 AD3d 353, 354 [2004]; Lupowitz v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

[610]*610The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting proof that the infant plaintiff, who was riding a motorized bicycle, exited a driveway and collided into the defendant’s motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 and 1173 (see Yasinosky v Lenio, 28 AD3d 652, 653 [2006]; Lallemand v Cook, 23 AD3d 533 [2005]; Trzepacz v Jara, 11 AD3d 531 [2004]; Ferrara v Castro, 283 AD2d 392 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The fact that the infant plaintiff did not see the defendant’s approaching car does not excuse the infant plaintiffs conduct (see Ferrara v Castro, 283 AD2d at 393; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Furthermore, the infant plaintiffs affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s alleged failure to take evasive action (see McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721, 722 [2005]; Meliarenne v Prisco, 9 AD3d 353, 354 [2004]; Lupowitz v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 609, 854 N.Y.2d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazza-v-manzella-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack