Uribe v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uribe v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc.

129 A.D.3d 509, 10 N.Y.S.3d 244

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

DecidedJune 11, 2015

Docket15408 22713/12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 509 (Uribe v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc.) 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

Uribe v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc., 129 A.D.3d 509, 10 N.Y.S.3d 244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 17, 2014, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no dispute that defendants’ truck failed to stop at a red traffic light, and hit the side of plaintiff’s vehicle as he was driving through the intersection with a green light in his favor. Defendant driver testified that he was unable to stop the truck in time to avoid the collision, because a bottle had become stuck under the brake pedal, so that he had to use the emergency brake. Defendant driver’s failure to yield the right of way to plaintiff in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 established his negligence (see Pace v Robinson, 88 AD3d 530 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff, who averred that he was driving at the speed limit, and "who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that other vehicles would stop at the red lights *510 against them, and he had no duty to watch for and avoid one that failed to do so” (Tiefenthaler v Islam, 66 AD3d 588, 589 [1st Dept 2009]).

Defendants’ speculation concerning what plaintiff might have been able to do to avoid the accident is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see id.).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 17, 2014, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no dispute that defendants’ truck failed to stop at a red traffic light, and hit the side of plaintiff’s vehicle as he was driving through the intersection with a green light in his favor. Defendant driver testified that he was unable to stop the truck in time to avoid the collision, because a bottle had become stuck under the brake pedal, so that he had to use the emergency brake. Defendant driver’s failure to yield the right of way to plaintiff in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 established his negligence (see Pace v Robinson, 88 AD3d 530 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff, who averred that he was driving at the speed limit, and "who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that other vehicles would stop at the red lights *510 against them, and he had no duty to watch for and avoid one that failed to do so” (Tiefenthaler v Islam, 66 AD3d 588, 589 [1st Dept 2009]).

Defendants’ speculation concerning what plaintiff might have been able to do to avoid the accident is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see id.).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 509, 10 N.Y.S.3d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uribe-v-pronto-gas-heating-supplies-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack