Juan Olivares, appellant, v. Brian K. Andacky, respondent. (2026)

Argued—February 11, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

Q/

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gary M. Carlton, J.), entered October 24, 2024.  The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a truck operated by the defendant came into contact with the plaintiff's vehicle.  Immediately before the accident, the plaintiff drove out of a gas station and across two or three southbound lanes, through traffic, in an attempt to turn left onto the northbound lanes of Westminster Road. The defendant was traveling in one of the southbound lanes and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle before the plaintiff could complete the maneuver.

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” (Boulos v. Lerner–Harrington, 124 AD3d 709, 709;  see Sheppard v. Arora, 229 AD3d 727, 728).  “Although drivers with the right-of-way are entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws, they nonetheless still have a duty to avoid colliding with other vehicles” (Nesbitt v. Gallant, 149 AD3d 763, 763–764;  see Merola v. Beaird, 185 AD3d 679, 680;  Bullock v. Calabretta, 119 AD3d 884, 884).  “However, a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” (Elusma v. Jackson, 186 AD3d 1326, 1327 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint.  In support of his motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, which established that the plaintiff was negligent in driving his vehicle out of the gas station and directly across two or three southbound lanes, through a gap in traffic, with the intention of turning onto the northbound side of the road (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143;  Sheppard v. Arora, 229 AD3d at 728;  Green v. Masterson, 172 AD3d 826, 827;  see also Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128[a];  1162).  Moreover, the evidence showed that both the plaintiff and the defendant saw each other's vehicles only a second before the impact occurred and that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident (see Sheppard v. Arora, 229 AD3d at 728;  Green v. Masterson, 172 AD3d at 827).  In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Sheppard v. Arora, 229 AD3d at 728;  Green v. Masterson, 172 AD3d at 827).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.

IANNACCI, J.P., TAYLOR, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court