Sylvester v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sylvester v. Velez

2017 NY Slip Op 390, 146 A.D.3d 599, 44 N.Y.S.3d 742

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 19, 2017·No. 2781 157938/12·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R Bluth, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff pedestrian testified that he was struck by defendant’s vehicle while crossing the street within the crosswalk, but conceded that he did not have the right of way when he entered the street (see Santo-Perez v Enterprise Leasing Co., 126 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2015]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1112; 34 RCNY 4-04 [b] [2]). Nevertheless, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, triable issues of fact exist as to the relative positions of plaintiff and defendant at the time of the accident, and whether defendant could have seen plaintiff before the accident and failed to exercise due care to avoid the accident (see Santo-Perez at 621; Moreira v Ramos, 95 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2012]; Romeo v DeGennaro, 255 AD2d 208 [1st Dept 1998]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146).

Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R Bluth, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff pedestrian testified that he was struck by defendant’s vehicle while crossing the street within the crosswalk, but conceded that he did not have the right of way when he entered the street (see Santo-Perez v Enterprise Leasing Co., 126 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2015]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1112; 34 RCNY 4-04 [b] [2]). Nevertheless, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, triable issues of fact exist as to the relative positions of plaintiff and defendant at the time of the accident, and whether defendant could have seen plaintiff before the accident and failed to exercise due care to avoid the accident (see Santo-Perez at 621; Moreira v Ramos, 95 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2012]; Romeo v DeGennaro, 255 AD2d 208 [1st Dept 1998]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146).

Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Sylvester v. Velez, 2017 NY Slip Op 390, 146 A.D.3d 599, 44 N.Y.S.3d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 390 (Sylvester v. Velez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related