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.
Brett Ostrander, plaintiff-respondent, v. Linda A. Sannicandro, appellant, William J. Scharff, defendant-respondent.
Submitted-December 13, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Linda A. Sannicandro appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated October 26, 2009, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A vehicle operated by the defendant William J. Scharff, in which the plaintiff was a passenger, collided with a vehicle operated by the defendant Linda A. Sannicandro at the intersection of Runyon Street and Namdac Avenue in Islip. The Scharff vehicle was traveling in the northbound lane of Namdac Avenue, which was governed by a stop sign at its intersection with Runyon Street. The Sannicandro vehicle was traveling in the westbound lane of Runyon Street, which was not governed by a traffic control device.
Sannicandro failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” (Cox v. Nunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427). Although a stop sign governed the intersection for traffic proceeding in the direction that the Scharff vehicle traveled, triable issues of fact exist as to whether Sannicandro was free from negligence and, if not, whether that negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see Kim v. Acosta, 72 AD3d 648; Virzi v. Fraser, 51 AD3d 784; Campbell-Lopez v. Cruz, 31 AD3d 475). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Sannicandro's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2009-10953 (Index No. 4825 /08)
Decided: January 11, 2011
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)