Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gwendolyn C. DINHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward D. WAGNER, et al., Defendants, Nancy Kim, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered October 6, 2006, which, upon reargument of a prior order, granted the Kim defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered August 4 and 31, 2006, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by appeal from the October 6 order.
Plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle owned by defendant Wagner and driven by defendant Dinham, seeks damages for injuries sustained in an accident in which that vehicle collided at an intersection with a vehicle driven by defendant Choung-Mi Kim. It is undisputed that Kim had the traffic light in her favor at the intersection. It is well settled that “an operator who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield” (Namisnak v. Martin, 244 A.D.2d 258, 260, 664 N.Y.S.2d 435 [1997] ), and has “no duty to watch for and avoid a driver who might fail to stop ․ at a stop sign” (Perez v. Brux Cab Corp., 251 A.D.2d 157, 159-160, 674 N.Y.S.2d 343 [1998] ). The Kim defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting the accident report containing a statement by Dinham that she had run the red light, and an affidavit from defendant Mi-Choung Kim stating that she was not at fault and could not have avoided the vehicle that ran the red light (see Espinoza v. Loor, 299 A.D.2d 167, 753 N.Y.S.2d 29 [2002] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Murchison v. Incognoli, 5 A.D.3d 271, 773 N.Y.S.2d 299 [2004] ). The affirmation by plaintiff's counsel, who had no personal knowledge of the accident, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether Kim was comparatively negligent (see Jenkins v. R.C. Alexander, 9 A.D.3d 286, 780 N.Y.S.2d 133 [2004] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 26, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)