Willis v. Fink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willis v. Fink

7 A.D.3d 519, 775 N.Y.S.2d 587

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 3, 2004·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated June 13,-2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[520] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant, who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs’ vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; McClelland v Seery, 261 AD2d 451 [1999]; Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291 [1998]; Maxwell v Land-Saunders, 233 AD2d 303 [1996]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lupowitz v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated June 13,-2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[520] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant, who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs’ vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; McClelland v Seery, 261 AD2d 451 [1999]; Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291 [1998]; Maxwell v Land-Saunders, 233 AD2d 303 [1996]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lupowitz v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Willis v. Fink, 7 A.D.3d 519, 775 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

7 A.D.3d 519 (Willis v. Fink) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related