Szczotka v. Adler

291 A.D.2d 444, 737 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1625
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 444 (Szczotka v. Adler) 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
Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444, 737 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated March 5, 2001, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff was traveling southbound on Mill Road in Riverhead, while the defendant was traveling westbound on Hinda Boulevard. At the intersection of Mill Road and Hinda Boulevard a stop sign governs westbound traffic on Hinda Boulevard. As the plaintiff crossed Hinda Boulevard, on Mill Road, the defendant struck her vehicle.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability asserting that the defendant failed to stop at the stop sign. In opposition, the defendant asserted that he did stop at the stop sign and that the plaintiff must have been speeding.

Regardless of whether the defendant stopped at the stop sign, the plaintiff established that the defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a), by failing to yield the right of way to her. The plaintiff was, at a minimum, “approaching so closely * * * as to constitute an immediate hazard” to the defendant as he drove through the Mill Road and Hinda Boulevard intersection (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]).

The defendant’s speculation that the plaintiff must have been speeding because he did not see her when he looked in her direction is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [f|; Borst v Sunnydale Farms, 258 AD2d 488; Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assoc., 189 AD2d 609). Furthermore, the defendant failed to establish that additional discovery would yield any facts indicating the plaintiff was at fault and justify denying her motion (see, CPLR 3212 [fl). Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Martinez v. Cofer
128 A.D.3d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Dominguez v. CCM Computers, Inc.
74 A.D.3d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Stanford v. Dushey
71 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Falcone v. Ibarra
67 A.D.3d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Quinones v. Nugent
59 A.D.3d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Batts v. Page
51 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Mizrahi v. Ping Lam
40 A.D.3d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
McDonald v. Mauss
38 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Carpio v. Leahy Mechanical Corp.
30 A.D.3d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Carabella v. Saad
29 A.D.3d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Fenton v. Austin
23 A.D.3d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Ishak v. Guzman
12 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Trzepacz v. Jara
11 A.D.3d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Glen v. Murphy
2004 NY Slip Op 24295 (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2004)
Glen v. Murphy
4 Misc. 3d 970 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Morgan v. Hachmann
9 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Meliarenne v. Prisco
9 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Nasirudin v. Harry
8 A.D.3d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Torro v. Schiller
8 A.D.3d 364 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Willis v. Fink
7 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.D.2d 444, 737 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szczotka-v-adler-nyappdiv-2002.