Qamar v. Kanarek

82 A.D.3d 860, 918 N.Y.2d 360
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 860 (Qamar v. Kanarek) 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
Qamar v. Kanarek, 82 A.D.3d 860, 918 N.Y.2d 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[861]*861In support of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff pedestrian demonstrated that the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way in making a left turn and struck the plaintiff while the plaintiff was crossing the street within the crosswalk with a pedestrian traffic signal in his favor. The plaintiff showed that he exercised due care in crossing the street and that he was struck by the defendant driver, suddenly and without warning, when he was more than halfway across the street, having “almost reached” the curb that he was crossing to. Thus, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Klee v Americas Best Bottling Co., Inc., 60 AD3d 911 [2009]; Benedikt v Certified Lbr. Corp., 60 AD3d 798 [2009]; Voskin v Lemel, 52 AD3d 503 [2008]; cf. Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736 [1993]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Angiolillo, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matyas v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation
2018 NY Slip Op 1600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lezcano-Correa v. Sunny's Limousine Service, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 8352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Ioffe v. Seruya
134 A.D.3d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Chou v. Ocean Ambulette Service, Inc.
131 A.D.3d 1091 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Zhu v. Natale
131 A.D.3d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Pinchevsky v. Lasher
125 A.D.3d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
France Herly Bien-Aime v. Clare
124 A.D.3d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Iris v. Greene
118 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ramos v. Bartis
112 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Moreira v. M.K. Travel & Transport, Inc.
106 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Day v. MTA Bus Co.
94 A.D.3d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cuevas v. Chavez
94 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Arazashvilli v. Executive Fleet Management, Corp.
90 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Shenkerman v. Goycoechea
34 Misc. 3d 496 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Martinez v. Kreychmar
84 A.D.3d 1037 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 860, 918 N.Y.2d 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qamar-v-kanarek-nyappdiv-2011.