Viscecchia v. Rocha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Viscecchia v. Rocha

29 A.D.3d 680, 813 N.Y.S.2d 675

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

DecidedMay 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 680 (Viscecchia v. Rocha) 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

Viscecchia v. Rocha, 29 A.D.3d 680, 813 N.Y.S.2d 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated May 26, 2005, which denied his 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 established a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He demonstrated that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when she failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs vehicle. Despite seeing the plaintiff “[l]ike a three car’s wide distance” away, she turned left into the plaintiffs lane of oncoming traffic, and collided with the driver’s side of the plaintiffs vehicle. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Console v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 19 AD3d 637, 638 [2005]; cf. Stiles v County of Dutchess, 278 AD2d 304, 305 [2000]). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Covello, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated May 26, 2005, which denied his 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 established a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He demonstrated that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when she failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs vehicle. Despite seeing the plaintiff “[l]ike a three car’s wide distance” away, she turned left into the plaintiffs lane of oncoming traffic, and collided with the driver’s side of the plaintiffs vehicle. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Console v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 19 AD3d 637, 638 [2005]; cf. Stiles v County of Dutchess, 278 AD2d 304, 305 [2000]). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 680, 813 N.Y.S.2d 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viscecchia-v-rocha-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack