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.
Stephany JARAMILLO, respondent, v. Natividad TORRES, et al., appellants.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 10, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the car she was operating collided at an intersection with a car owned by the defendant Natividad Torres and operated by the defendant Jonathan A. Herrera. The traffic proceeding in the plaintiff's direction was controlled by a stop sign at the intersection, while traffic proceeding in Herrera's direction was not controlled by any traffic device. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she stopped at the stop sign before entering the intersection and did not see Herrera's car prior to the collision. At his deposition, Herrera testified that he first saw the plaintiff's car less than one second before the accident, when it was already in the intersection.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law by presenting uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff proceeded into the intersection without yielding the right of way, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) (see Gorelik v. Laidlaw Tr., Inc., 50 A.D.3d 739, 856 N.Y.S.2d 197; Maliza v. Puerto-Rican Transp. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 650, 651, 854 N.Y.S.2d 763; Exime v. Williams, 45 A.D.3d 633, 634, 845 N.Y.S.2d 450; Gergis v. Miccio, 39 A.D.3d 468, 468-469, 834 N.Y.S.2d 253). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to Herrera's alleged comparative negligence (see Gravina v. Wakschal, 255 A.D.2d 291, 291-292, 679 N.Y.S.2d 420; Snow v. Howe, 253 A.D.2d 870, 870-871, 678 N.Y.S.2d 357; Maxwell v. Land-Saunders, 233 A.D.2d 303, 649 N.Y.S.2d 809). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
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: March 10, 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.
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)