Tepoz v. Sosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tepoz v. Sosa

241 A.D.2d 449, 663 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 449 (Tepoz v. Sosa) 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

Tepoz v. Sosa, 241 A.D.2d 449, 663 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, inter alia, in failing to display lighted tail lights on the vehicle that she was attempting to park (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [2] [a] [1]; [3]). A defendant’s unexcused violation of a statute constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence and it is for the jury to determine whether the violation was the proximate cause of the accident (see, Martin v Herzog, 228 NY 164; Malloy v Trombley, 50 NY2d 46, 55; Frias v Fanning, 119 AD2d 796; McConnell v Nabozny, 110 AD2d 1060; Brogan v Zummo, 92 AD2d 533; McAllister v Adam Packing Corp., 66 AD2d 975; Ortiz v Kinoshita & Co., 30 AD2d 334). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, inter alia, in failing to display lighted tail lights on the vehicle that she was attempting to park (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [2] [a] [1]; [3]). A defendant’s unexcused violation of a statute constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence and it is for the jury to determine whether the violation was the proximate cause of the accident (see, Martin v Herzog, 228 NY 164; Malloy v Trombley, 50 NY2d 46, 55; Frias v Fanning, 119 AD2d 796; McConnell v Nabozny, 110 AD2d 1060; Brogan v Zummo, 92 AD2d 533; McAllister v Adam Packing Corp., 66 AD2d 975; Ortiz v Kinoshita & Co., 30 AD2d 334). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 449, 663 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tepoz-v-sosa-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack