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.
SHARI GEORGE, AS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF JOSIAH GEORGE, A MINOR, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. GLENN P. CERAT, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff, as parent and natural guardian of her son, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained as a bicyclist when he collided with a vehicle owned and operated by defendant. Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, defendant established that he was traveling at a lawful rate of speed, had the right-of-way with respect to his vehicle and did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident (see Lescenski v. Williams, 90 AD3d 1705, 1705–1706, lv denied 18 NY3d 811). Defendant established through the deposition testimony of several witnesses and the affidavit of an accident reconstruction specialist that the conduct of plaintiff's son was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see id.). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). “While a driver is required to ‘see that which through proper use of [his] ․ senses [he] ․ should have seen’ ․, a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that [a bicyclist] will obey the traffic law requiring him ․ to yield ․ ‘[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a [bicycle] which has failed to yield is not ․ negligent for failing to avoid the collision’ “ (Vainer v. DiSalvo, 79 AD3d 1023, 1024).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 13–02008
Decided: June 20, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)