Rozon v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rozon v. Rosario

2016 NY Slip Op 8005, 144 A.D.3d 597, 42 N.Y.S.3d 27, 2016 WL 6954291

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2016·No. 2319 305547/12·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that she was crossing the intersection within the crosswalk and with the light in her favor, when defendants’ vehicle struck her while making a left turn. In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to comparative negligence. Plaintiff testified that as she was in the middle of the intersection, she saw defendants’ vehicle about one to two seconds prior to being struck (see Perez-Hernandez v M. Marte Auto Corp., 104 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2013]; Hines v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD3d 528 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that she was crossing the intersection within the crosswalk and with the light in her favor, when defendants’ vehicle struck her while making a left turn. In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to comparative negligence. Plaintiff testified that as she was in the middle of the intersection, she saw defendants’ vehicle about one to two seconds prior to being struck (see Perez-Hernandez v M. Marte Auto Corp., 104 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2013]; Hines v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD3d 528 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Rozon v. Rosario, 2016 NY Slip Op 8005, 144 A.D.3d 597, 42 N.Y.S.3d 27, 2016 WL 6954291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 8005 (Rozon v. Rosario) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related