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.
Sirene KING, et al., plaintiffs, v. Lola DALTON, appellant, CDS Mestel Construction Corp., et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Lola Dalton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated November 20, 1998, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The admission of the defendant Rafael Landin that his truck entered the intersection where the accident occurred while the light was red established, prima facie, that he was solely at fault for the accident (see, Diasparra v. Smith, 253 A.D.2d 840, 678 N.Y.S.2d 373; Guerriero v. Timberlake, 254 A.D.2d 393, 678 N.Y.S.2d 739; Salenius v. Lisbon, 217 A.D.2d 692, 630 N.Y.S.2d 531). The opposition submitted by Landin and the defendant CDS Mestel Construction Corp., which was the only opposition submitted on the motion, failed to raise any triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant had been negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care in entering the intersection, or in avoiding the collision (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718; Diasparra v. Smith, supra; Delasoudas v. Koudellou, 236 A.D.2d 581, 654 N.Y.S.2d 659). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: December 06, 1999
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.
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)