Ponticello v. Wilhelm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ponticello v. Wilhelm

249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 459 (Ponticello v. Wilhelm) 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

Ponticello v. Wilhelm, 249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Santo Ponticello appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim and his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion and the cross motion are granted, the counterclaim is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

The undisputed evidence in the record that the defendants’ approach to the intersection where the subject accident occurred was controlled by a stop sign, and that the plaintiffs had the right of way, establishes that the defendant Wilma Wilhelm violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) by failing to yield to the plaintiffs’ approaching vehicle (see, Mohamed v Frische, 223 AD2d 628). The plaintiffs have thus made out a prima facie case that the accident and resulting injuries to the plaintiffs were caused by Wilhelm’s negligence.

The evidence submitted by the defendants fails to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) with regard to the issue of liability. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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, etc., the plaintiff Santo Ponticello appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim and his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion and the cross motion are granted, the counterclaim is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

The undisputed evidence in the record that the defendants’ approach to the intersection where the subject accident occurred was controlled by a stop sign, and that the plaintiffs had the right of way, establishes that the defendant Wilma Wilhelm violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) by failing to yield to the plaintiffs’ approaching vehicle (see, Mohamed v Frische, 223 AD2d 628). The plaintiffs have thus made out a prima facie case that the accident and resulting injuries to the plaintiffs were caused by Wilhelm’s negligence.

The evidence submitted by the defendants fails to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) with regard to the issue of liability. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponticello-v-wilhelm-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack