Sanchez v. Lonero Transit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. Lonero Transit, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 417, 953 N.Y.S.2d 194

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 417 (Sanchez v. Lonero Transit, Inc.) 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

Sanchez v. Lonero Transit, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 417, 953 N.Y.S.2d 194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered October 24, 2011, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where his vehicle was struck by a school bus driven by defendant Herrera. Herrera testified that she did not see the stop sign and apply the brakes until two or three feet of the bus had passed the sign and entered the intersection, where the collision occurred. Accordingly, plaintiff demonstrated that a substantial cause of the accident was Herrera’s negligence in failing to stop at the stop sign and yield the right of way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]).

Even assuming comparative negligence is relevant, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning plaintiffs comparative negligence based on Herrera’s testimony that plaintiffs vehicle was traveling fast. There was a lack of evidence that plaintiff was speeding and plaintiff had no duty to anticipate that Herrera would not stop at the stop sign (see Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157, 159-160 [1st Dept 1998]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered October 24, 2011, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where his vehicle was struck by a school bus driven by defendant Herrera. Herrera testified that she did not see the stop sign and apply the brakes until two or three feet of the bus had passed the sign and entered the intersection, where the collision occurred. Accordingly, plaintiff demonstrated that a substantial cause of the accident was Herrera’s negligence in failing to stop at the stop sign and yield the right of way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]).

Even assuming comparative negligence is relevant, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning plaintiffs comparative negligence based on Herrera’s testimony that plaintiffs vehicle was traveling fast. There was a lack of evidence that plaintiff was speeding and plaintiff had no duty to anticipate that Herrera would not stop at the stop sign (see Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157, 159-160 [1st Dept 1998]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 417, 953 N.Y.S.2d 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-lonero-transit-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack