Panzer v. MTA Bus Com.

2017 NY Slip Op 7746, 155 A.D.3d 763, 63 N.Y.S.3d 515
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 8, 2017
Docket2016-05638
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7746 (Panzer v. MTA Bus Com.) 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
Panzer v. MTA Bus Com., 2017 NY Slip Op 7746, 155 A.D.3d 763, 63 N.Y.S.3d 515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), entered March 28, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On July 31, 2012, the plaintiff’s vehicle and a bus owned by the defendant MTA Bus Company and operated by the defendant Paul Zanata collided on Queens Boulevard near its intersection with 70th Road in Queens. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the plaintiff attempted to merge into Zanata’s lane of traffic without yielding the right-of-way, and that her conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Fuertes v City of New York, 146 AD3d 936, 937 [2017]; Wolf v Cruickshank, 144 AD3d 1144, 1145 [2016]; Nohs v DiRaimondo, 140 AD3d 1132, 1134 [2016]; Luke v McFadden, 119 AD3d 533, 534 [2014]; Amalfitano v Rocco, 100 AD3d 939, 940 [2012]). It is immaterial that the plaintiff may have stopped at a stop sign before she attempted to merge, because she did not have the right-of-way when she proceeded (see Fuertes v City of New York, 146 AD3d at 937; Lara v Faulisi, 142 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2016]; Hatton v Lara, 142 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2016]; Crowe v Hanley, 123 AD3d 755, 757 [2014]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Luke v. McFadden
119 A.D.3d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Crowe v. Hanley
123 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Nohs v. DiRaimondo
140 A.D.3d 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lara v. Faulisi
142 A.D.3d 1047 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lara v. Faulisi
142 A.D.3d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Wolf v. Cruickshank
2016 NY Slip Op 8070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Fuertes v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Amalfitano v. Rocco
100 A.D.3d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 7746, 155 A.D.3d 763, 63 N.Y.S.3d 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panzer-v-mta-bus-com-nyappdiv-2017.