Odumbo v. Perera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Odumbo v. Perera

27 A.D.3d 709, 813 N.Y.S.2d 462

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 2006·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Vitaliano, J.), dated August 26, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant, who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]; Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687 [2005]; Willis v Fink, 7 AD3d 519, 520 [2004]; cf. Rossani v Rana, 8 AD3d 548, 549 [2004]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bongiovi v Hoffman, supra; Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d 471, 472 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Vitaliano, J.), dated August 26, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant, who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]; Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687 [2005]; Willis v Fink, 7 AD3d 519, 520 [2004]; cf. Rossani v Rana, 8 AD3d 548, 549 [2004]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bongiovi v Hoffman, supra; Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d 471, 472 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Odumbo v. Perera, 27 A.D.3d 709, 813 N.Y.S.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

27 A.D.3d 709 (Odumbo v. Perera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related