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.
TREVOR JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. ALEXA L. MURPHY AND CORRINE E. MURPHY, DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when his bicycle collided with a motor vehicle driven by Corrine E. Murphy (defendant). Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint. Defendants established that plaintiff rode his bicycle from his driveway into the road without stopping, despite the fact that his view of oncoming traffic to his left was obstructed by a commercial truck parked next to his driveway. Defendants further established that defendant, who had the right-of-way, was traveling below the speed limit and did not see plaintiff until plaintiff collided with the passenger side of her vehicle, thus giving her no time to react. Defendants therefore established that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see George v. Cerat, 118 AD3d 1475, 1476; Rosa v. Scheiber, 89 AD3d 827, 828; see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
The court also properly denied plaintiff's cross motion seeking to compel defendants to provide discovery responses and for defendant “to appear at second party depositions.” As a preliminary matter, we note that although the cross motion was untimely, the court properly considered it to the extent that plaintiff argued that discovery was needed to oppose the motion (see CPLR 3212[f]; see generally Guallpa v Leon D. DeMatteis Constr. Corp., 117 AD3d 614, 616–617; Paredes v. 1668 Realty Assoc., LLC, 110 AD3d 700, 702; Conklin v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 49 AD3d 320, 321). In any event, the information sought by plaintiff at a further deposition of defendant, such as statements given by defendant to her insurance carrier, was privileged (see Beaumont v. Smyth, 306 A.D.2d 921, 922; Recant v. Harwood, 222 A.D.2d 372, 373–374; Sofio v. Hughes, 148 A.D.2d 439, 440; Matter of Weaver v. Waterville Knitting Mills, 78 A.D.2d 574, 574–575). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to establish that the documents and photographs he sought were “essential to justify opposition” to the motion (CPLR 3212 [f] ).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 14–00184
Decided: October 03, 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)