Santo-Perez v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santo-Perez v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

126 A.D.3d 621, 3 N.Y.S.3d 607

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 2015·No. 14638 309974/11·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about November 19, 2013, which granted defendant Anthony A. Hill’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

While the fact that plaintiff was crossing the street on foot outside of the crosswalk, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 (a), is evidence of negligence on his part, the record presents a triable issue of fact whether defendant Hill, operating a vehicle, contributed to the accident by failing to exercise due care to avoid a collision with plaintiff. Indeed, Hill testified that he saw plaintiff before the collision and had time to activate his horn and move his vehicle to the double line before reducing his speed by half (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146; Ryan v Budget Rent a Car, 37 AD3d 698 [2d Dept 2007]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about November 19, 2013, which granted defendant Anthony A. Hill’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

While the fact that plaintiff was crossing the street on foot outside of the crosswalk, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 (a), is evidence of negligence on his part, the record presents a triable issue of fact whether defendant Hill, operating a vehicle, contributed to the accident by failing to exercise due care to avoid a collision with plaintiff. Indeed, Hill testified that he saw plaintiff before the collision and had time to activate his horn and move his vehicle to the double line before reducing his speed by half (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146; Ryan v Budget Rent a Car, 37 AD3d 698 [2d Dept 2007]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Santo-Perez v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 126 A.D.3d 621, 3 N.Y.S.3d 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

126 A.D.3d 621 (Santo-Perez v. Enterprise Leasing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related