Ahern v. Lanaia

• Decision Date: 07 June 2011
• Citation: 924 N.Y.S.2d 802,85 A.D.3d 696,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05001
• Parties: Riane AHERN, respondent,v.Francine LANAIA, defendant,Jaclyn Lanaia, etc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 696

924 N.Y.S.2d 802

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05001

Riane AHERN, respondent,

v.Francine LANAIA, defendant,Jaclyn Lanaia, etc., appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 7, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREBaxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (William C. Lawlor and Anne Marie Garcia of counsel), for appellant.Richard J. Katz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Rapport and Arnold DiJoseph of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Jaclyn Lanaia appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated July 16, 2010, which granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Jaclyn Lanaia (hereinafter the defendant), the plaintiff demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against her by establishing that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 in making a left turn when it was not reasonably safe to do so, directly into the path of the plaintiff's oncoming vehicle which was lawfully present in the intersection ( see Loch v. Garber, 69 A.D.3d 814, 815, 893 N.Y.S.2d 233; Palomo v. Pozzi, 57 A.D.3d 498, 869 N.Y.S.2d 153; Spivak v. Erickson, 40 A.D.3d 962, 963, 836 N.Y.S.2d 676; Aristizabal v. Aristizabal, 37 A.D.3d 503, 504, 829 N.Y.S.2d 701; Gabler v. Marly Bldg. Supply Corp., 27 A.D.3d 519, 520, 813 N.Y.S.2d 120). Since the plaintiff had the right of way, she was entitled to assume that the defendant would obey the traffic laws requiring her to yield to the plaintiff's vehicle ( see Almonte v. Tobias, 36 A.D.3d 636, 829 N.Y.S.2d 153; Berner v. Koegel, 31 A.D.3d 591, 592, 819 N.Y.S.2d 89).

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, since her claim of a material inconsistency in the plaintiff's deposition testimony is illusory, the evidence in the record does not support the defendant's speculative assertions of comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff, and the slight differences between the parties' respective versions of the events do not alter the conclusion that the defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident ( see Loch v. Garber, 69 A.D.3d at 816, 893 N.Y.S.2d 233; Berner v. Koegel, 31 A.D.3d at 592, 819 N.Y.S.2d 89; Jacino v....