GEICO v. MIGUEL BELNAVIS (2026)

The following numbered papers were read on this motion by plaintiff for summary judgment (CPLR 3212).

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Exhibits, Service 1-5

Affirmation in Opposition, Exhibits, Service 6-7

Affirmation in Reply, Exhibits, Service 8-9

Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is determined as follows:

Plaintiff's complaint seeks property damages arising from the alleged negligence of defendants in a two-car motor vehicle accident that occurred near the intersection of Meridian Road and Grand Central Parkway, Queens, New York on July 18, 2024. Defendant Rony Limousine Corp. interposed an answer alleging general denials and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment upon the grounds defendants failed to yield the right-of-way at the governing stop sign.

"[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Matter of Aaron Manor Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., LLC v Zucker, 42 NY3d 46 [2024], citing Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see Schmitt v Medford Kidney Ctr., 121 AD3d 1088 [2d Dept 2014]; Zapata v Buitriago, 107 AD3d 977 [2d Dept 2013]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Once the movant has demonstrated, prima facie, a showing of entitlement to judgment, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see St. Claire v Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp., 33 AD3d 611 [2d Dept 2006], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Park Hosp., supra at 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 562). "Upon a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is one of issue-finding rather than issue determination" (Martinez v 281 Broadway Holdings LLC, 183 AD3d 716, 719 [2d Dept 2020]; see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499 [2012]).

In support of the motion, plaintiff submits copies of the pleadings, plaintiff's attorney affirmation, and the affirmation of plaintiff's subrogor, Anthony D. Plaintiff's affirmation and the accompanying evidence establishes plaintiff's subrogor was traveling on Meridian Road, which was not controlled by a stop sign, while the operator of defendants' vehicle, Miguel Belnavis, was exiting the Grand Central Parkway and approached the intersection with Meridian Road, which is controlled by a stop sign.

"Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), a driver entering an intersection controlled by a stop sign must yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle that is already in the intersection or that is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard" (see Fogg v Turo, Inc., 246 AD3d 705, 705-06 [2d Dept 2026], quoting Cruz v DiSalvo, 188 AD3d 986, 987 [2d Dept 2020]). "As a general matter, a driver who fails to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) and is negligent as a matter of law" (see Moustakas v Giardina, 241 AD3d 912, 913 [2d Dept 2025], quoting Andrade-Fuentes v Iglesia Cristiana Valle De Jesus, Inc., 219 AD3d 1286, 1288 [2d Dept 2023]). "Even though the driver with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield, he or she still has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle already in the intersection" (id., quoting Park v Giunta, 217 AD3d 661, 662 [2d Dept 2023]).

Here, plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that defendants entered the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to the plaintiff's vehicle, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

In opposition, defendants failed to offer a nonnegligent explanation for failing to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff's vehicle and thus, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Court finds defendants' contention that plaintiff was traveling at an excessive rate of speed is unsupported by the record and speculative considering defendant Miguel B.'s attestation he did not see the plaintiff's subrogor's vehicle prior to impact (see Fernandez v Am. United Transportation, Inc., 177 AD3d 704, 707 [2d Dept 2019]; Rahaman v Abodeledhman, 64 AD3d 552, 553 [2d Dept 2009]; see e.g. Hamouche v GAR Landscaping, Inc., 88 Misc 3d 1229(A) [Sup Ct, Richmond County 2026]).

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff is awarded judgment against defendants Rony Limousine Corp. and Miguel Belnavis in the amount of $12,218.42, together with statutory interest, costs, and disbursements.

Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon defendants within thirty (30) days of the date of entry hereof.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

Date: June 4, 2026

Jamaica, New York

Hon. Peter F. Lane, JCC

Peter F. Lane, J.