Salamone v. Barenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salamone v. Barenbaum

281 A.D.2d 199, 721 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2245

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 199 (Salamone v. Barenbaum) 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

Salamone v. Barenbaum, 281 A.D.2d 199, 721 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ automobiles collided at an intersection, defendant’s approach controlled by a stop sign, while plaintiff was on a through street. Defendant testified that he entered the intersection only after he stopped at the corner for five or ten seconds, looked both ways with unobstructed views, and saw no approaching vehicles. Under no fair interpretation of this evidence could the jury find, as it did, that defendant was wholly free from negligence. At a minimum, defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and § 1172 (a) by proceeding into the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to plaintiff, regardless of whether done deliberately, or because he did not look in the direction of plaintiff’s approach, or because he failed to see that which he should have seen with the proper use of his senses (see, Mohamed v Frische, 223 AD2d 628; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549; see also, Milka v Hernandez, 187 AD2d 1031). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ automobiles collided at an intersection, defendant’s approach controlled by a stop sign, while plaintiff was on a through street. Defendant testified that he entered the intersection only after he stopped at the corner for five or ten seconds, looked both ways with unobstructed views, and saw no approaching vehicles. Under no fair interpretation of this evidence could the jury find, as it did, that defendant was wholly free from negligence. At a minimum, defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and § 1172 (a) by proceeding into the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to plaintiff, regardless of whether done deliberately, or because he did not look in the direction of plaintiff’s approach, or because he failed to see that which he should have seen with the proper use of his senses (see, Mohamed v Frische, 223 AD2d 628; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549; see also, Milka v Hernandez, 187 AD2d 1031). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 199, 721 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salamone-v-barenbaum-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack