Pappalardi v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pappalardi v. Jones

29 A.D.3d 391, 813 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 391 (Pappalardi v. Jones) 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

Pappalardi v. Jones, 29 A.D.3d 391, 813 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 25, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It cannot be said that defendant driver’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as a matter of law, merely because his approach into the intersection was regulated by a stop sign whereas there were no traffic control devices regulating plaintiff’s approach (Hernandez v Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 AD2d 381 [2003]). The conflicting deposition testimony raises issues of fact, including whether defendant stopped for a stop sign, whether defendant driver’s vehicle was already in the intersection when plaintiff approached and whether plaintiffs view of defendant’s vehicle was obstructed. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 25, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It cannot be said that defendant driver’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as a matter of law, merely because his approach into the intersection was regulated by a stop sign whereas there were no traffic control devices regulating plaintiff’s approach (Hernandez v Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 AD2d 381 [2003]). The conflicting deposition testimony raises issues of fact, including whether defendant stopped for a stop sign, whether defendant driver’s vehicle was already in the intersection when plaintiff approached and whether plaintiffs view of defendant’s vehicle was obstructed. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 391, 813 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pappalardi-v-jones-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack