Thoma v. Ronai

New York Court of Appeals

Thoma v. Ronai

621 N.E.2d 690, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 602 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3014

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by134 cases

This text of 621 N.E.2d 690 (Thoma v. Ronai) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thoma v. Ronai, 621 N.E.2d 690, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 602 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3014 (N.Y. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by her as a pedestrian when she was struck by defendant’s automobile in an intersection. Defendant interposes comparative negligence.

The submissions to the nisi prius court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, consisting of her affidavit and the police accident report, demonstrate that she may have been negligent in failing to look to her left while crossing the intersection. Plaintiff’s concession that she did not observe the vehicle that struck her raises a factual question of her reasonable care. Accordingly, plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating the absence of any material issue of fact and the lower courts correctly denied summary judgment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur in memorandum; Judge Levine taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the *738 Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by her as a pedestrian when she was struck by defendant’s automobile in an intersection. Defendant interposes comparative negligence.

The submissions to the nisi prius court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, consisting of her affidavit and the police accident report, demonstrate that she may have been negligent in failing to look to her left while crossing the intersection. Plaintiff’s concession that she did not observe the vehicle that struck her raises a factual question of her reasonable care. Accordingly, plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating the absence of any material issue of fact and the lower courts correctly denied summary judgment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur in memorandum; Judge Levine taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the *738 Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 N.E.2d 690, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 602 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thoma-v-ronai-ny-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack