HUERTA v. QUICKDROPPER LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gina Abadi, J.), dated January 6, 2025. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On January 11, 2021, the plaintiff, who was driving a van owned by her employer, allegedly sustained personal injuries when that van collided with a van owned by the defendant and operated by an employee of the defendant in a storage facility located in Staten Island. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in the accident. Following the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. In an order dated January 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the accident, or that the alleged negligence of another person was the sole proximate cause thereof” (Morante v Blaney, 234 AD3d 679, 680 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Goodluck v Azeez, 247 AD3d 855, 856).

“ ‘An accident can have more than one proximate cause, and although it is generally for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause, it may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts’ ” (Kelly v Pedersen, 241 AD3d 804, 805, quoting Kirby v Lett, 208 AD3d 1174, 1175).

“Although a driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the other driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield, a driver is bound to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses and is negligent for failure to do so” (Morante v Blaney, 234 AD3d at 680–681 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Goodluck v Azeez, 247 AD3d at 856). “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” (Morante v Blaney, 234 AD3d at 681 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Goodluck v Azeez, 247 AD3d at 856).

Here, video footage and transcripts of deposition testimony submitted by the defendant in support of its motion established, prima facie, that it was not at fault in the happening of the accident and that the plaintiff's conduct in making a wide right turn after veering to the left side of the road, without displaying a turn signal, was the sole proximate cause thereof (see Collet v Ortiz, 242 AD3d 1053, 1054; Morante v Blaney, 234 AD3d at 681).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Morante v Blaney, 234 AD3d at 681; Orellana v Mendez, 208 AD3d 888, 890).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.