Yusupov v. Lugo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yusupov v. Lugo

305 A.D.2d 496, 758 N.Y.S.2d 822

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 496 (Yusupov v. Lugo) 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

Yusupov v. Lugo, 305 A.D.2d 496, 758 N.Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated May 17, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability by presenting undisputed proof that the defendants’ vehicle proceeded into an intersection, which was controlled by a stop sign, and failed to yield the right-of-way to his approaching vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Botero v Erraez, 289 AD2d 274, 275 [2001]; Ponticello v Wilhelm, 249 AD2d 459 [1998]; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549 [1996]). In response to that showing, the defendants failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; cf. Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d 471, 472 [2002]; Le Claire v Pratt, 270 AD2d 612 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Santucci, J.P., Peuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated May 17, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability by presenting undisputed proof that the defendants’ vehicle proceeded into an intersection, which was controlled by a stop sign, and failed to yield the right-of-way to his approaching vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Botero v Erraez, 289 AD2d 274, 275 [2001]; Ponticello v Wilhelm, 249 AD2d 459 [1998]; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549 [1996]). In response to that showing, the defendants failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; cf. Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d 471, 472 [2002]; Le Claire v Pratt, 270 AD2d 612 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Santucci, J.P., Peuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 496, 758 N.Y.S.2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yusupov-v-lugo-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack