MIZRAHI v. LAM (2007)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated July 7, 2006, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This case arises from an intersection collision wherein the only traffic control device was a stop sign controlling the defendant's approach to the intersection.   At her deposition the defendant testified that after coming to a stop at the sign, she observed the plaintiff's vehicle before she began to move into the intersection.

 In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff established that the defendant failed to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff's car “which [was] approaching so closely ․ as to constitute an immediate hazard” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a];  see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172[a];  Platt v. Wolman, 29 A.D.3d 663, 816 N.Y.S.2d 121;  Meliarenne v. Prisco, 9 A.D.3d 353, 780 N.Y.S.2d 30;  Morgan v. Hachmann, 9 A.D.3d 400, 780 N.Y.S.2d 33).   The plaintiff, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to assume that the defendant would obey traffic laws requiring her to yield (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a];  Rossani v. Rana, 8 A.D.3d 548, 779 N.Y.S.2d 211).

 Accordingly, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law (see Disher v. Ahern, 294 A.D.2d 393, 741 N.Y.S.2d 739).   In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Klein v. Byalik, 1 A.D.3d 399, 766 N.Y.S.2d 687;  Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444, 737 N.Y.S.2d 121).   Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).