SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ v. BRUCE (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Matthew Parker–Raso, J.), entered February 5, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Raymond Bruce's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court improperly granted summary judgment to defendant, as he failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.  On May 24, 2018, plaintiff and defendant were involved in an accident when their vehicles collided at the intersection of Grant Highway and West 169th Street in the Bronx.  Plaintiff testified during his deposition that prior to the accident, he was driving on Grant Highway in the left lane and was the first car stopped at a red light at the intersection with 169th Street.  Plaintiff saw a concrete truck, owned by third-party defendant Next–Gen Ready Mix, blocking traffic coming from the opposite direction.  Plaintiff claims that when the traffic signal turned green, he turned left toward 169th Street and proceeded carefully by the side of the stationary truck at a speed of five miles per hour or less.  Plaintiff also testified that he looked toward 169th Street but did not see defendant's vehicle because the truck blocked his view.  Plaintiff claims he had crossed over two traffic lanes and had almost completed the left turn when he first saw defendant's vehicle moving toward him.  Plaintiff pressed his brakes, but two seconds later defendant's vehicle hit plaintiff's vehicle on the front passenger side near the wheel.

Defendant testified during his deposition that before the collision, he was driving on Grant Highway traveling north toward West 169th Street in the right lane, at a speed of 10 to 15 miles per hour, when he saw the traffic signal turn from red to green.  Defendant saw the Next–Gen truck in the intersection blocking the northbound and bicycle lanes.  Defendant stopped his vehicle approximately 10 feet from the truck, and then moved forward to the right, partially into the bicycle and parking lanes to safely avoid the truck which was in reverse.  Defendant testified that he drove at a maximum speed of 22 miles per hour, below the speed limit.  Defendant also testified that he did not see plaintiff's vehicle prior to the impact.

The Next–Gen truck driver testified that he pulled into the intersection at an angle, blocking at most two lanes, stopped, and then reversed.  He was unaware of the accident until after he parked the truck.

Defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.  He testified that he was driving straight, below the speed limit, and with a green light when plaintiff's left-turning vehicle failed to yield, causing the impact (see Palau v. Pagan, 194 A.D.3d 425, 425–426, 143 N.Y.S.3d 206 [1st Dept. 2021] ).  Defendant further argues that plaintiff's failure to yield violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, which provides that “the driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection ․ shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within an intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.”  The photographs in the record show that defendant, who was driving straight, was sufficiently close to the intersection to constitute an “immediate hazard.”

In opposition, however, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact.  Plaintiff argues that defendant was required under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 to yield the right-of-way because plaintiff's vehicle was in the intersection before defendant's vehicle (see Crespo v. New York City Hous. Auth., 222 A.D.2d 300, 300, 635 N.Y.S.2d 593 [1st Dept. 1995] ).  Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 provides, in relevant part, that traffic facing a steady green signal – here defendant – may proceed straight but shall yield the right of way to other traffic lawfully within the intersection at the time the signal is exhibited.  Plaintiff testified that he almost completed his left turn through the intersection when he first saw defendant.  The evidence does not conclusively establish which vehicle was required to yield.  Moreover, both parties testified that the truck blocked the intersection and prevented them from being able to observe oncoming traffic.

Additionally, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143, a driver “about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.”  Plaintiff contends that defendant was required to yield because defendant attempted to enter the roadway from the bicycle and parking lanes to get around the truck.  However, the record does not provide conclusive evidence of each vehicle's location leading up to the accident and which party ultimately had a duty to yield.  Accordingly, there are questions of fact precluding summary dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.

The third-party complaint and counterclaims are hereby reinstated as the motion court only dismissed those claims upon dismissal of the primary complaint.