Murchison v. Incognoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murchison v. Incognoli

5 A.D.3d 271, 773 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3253

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 271 (Murchison v. Incognoli) 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

Murchison v. Incognoli, 5 A.D.3d 271, 773 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The parties’ motor vehicle collision occurred at a "T” intersection in Bronx County where Baretto Street ended at Lafayette Avenue. Plaintiffs vehicle, in the middle lane, stopped at the stop sign at the end of Baretto Street. She proceeded to turn left onto Lafayette Avenue immediately after the car in the left lane, next to her, also turned left. Plaintiff admitted that her view was obstructed by the car turning from the left lane and that she failed to see defendant’s pickup truck. It is established that defendant, driving along Lafayette Avenue, had the right of way under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; plaintiffs assertion that defendant had a stop sign has been completely refuted. "[A]n operator who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield” (Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258, 260 [1997] [citations omitted]; see Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157, 159-160 [1998]). Since plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from her failure to yield the right of way to defendant’s vehicle, defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see Smalley v McCarthy, 254 AD2d 478, 478-479 [1998]; Yusupov v Lugo, 305 AD2d 496, 496 [2003]; Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d 471 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 605 [2002]). Plaintiffs bare speculation that defendant driver was “going fast” is insufficient to create an issue of fact requiring trial (see Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The parties’ motor vehicle collision occurred at a "T” intersection in Bronx County where Baretto Street ended at Lafayette Avenue. Plaintiffs vehicle, in the middle lane, stopped at the stop sign at the end of Baretto Street. She proceeded to turn left onto Lafayette Avenue immediately after the car in the left lane, next to her, also turned left. Plaintiff admitted that her view was obstructed by the car turning from the left lane and that she failed to see defendant’s pickup truck. It is established that defendant, driving along Lafayette Avenue, had the right of way under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; plaintiffs assertion that defendant had a stop sign has been completely refuted. "[A]n operator who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield” (Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258, 260 [1997] [citations omitted]; see Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157, 159-160 [1998]). Since plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from her failure to yield the right of way to defendant’s vehicle, defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see Smalley v McCarthy, 254 AD2d 478, 478-479 [1998]; Yusupov v Lugo, 305 AD2d 496, 496 [2003]; Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d 471 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 605 [2002]). Plaintiffs bare speculation that defendant driver was “going fast” is insufficient to create an issue of fact requiring trial (see Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 271, 773 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murchison-v-incognoli-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack