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.
Silvia MORENO, appellant, v. Luz Dary GOMEZ, respondent, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered August 27, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Luz Dary Gomez which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant Luz Dary Gomez demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the codefendant Marvin A. Matamoros violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when he made a left turn directly into the path of Gomez's oncoming vehicle (see Maloney v. Niewender, 27 A.D.3d 426, 812 N.Y.S.2d 585; Moreback v. Mesquita, 17 A.D.3d 420, 421, 793 N.Y.S.2d 148; Casaregola v. Farkouh, 1 A.D.3d 306, 767 N.Y.S.2d 57). Gomez, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that Matamoros would obey the traffic laws which required him to yield (see Agin v. Rehfeldt, 284 A.D.2d 352, 726 N.Y.S.2d 131; Cenovski v. Lee, 266 A.D.2d 424, 698 N.Y.S.2d 868).
In opposition to this prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether Gomez was comparatively negligent. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there is no evidence in the record that Gomez violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1123(b) when she passed to the right of a vehicle that was about to make a left turn in the intersection.
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.
Decided: January 13, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)