Colandrea v. Choku
| Decision Date | 24 April 2012 |
| Citation | 943 N.Y.S.2d 166,94 A.D.3d 1034,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03127 |
| Parties | Marc COLANDREA, respondent, v. Tenzin CHOKU, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Skenderis & Cornacchia, P.C., Long Island City, N.Y. (Louis T. Cornacchia III of counsel), for appellants.
Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey A. Berson of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated April 8, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated June 3, 2011, as denied those branches of their motion which were to (a) vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial, (b) strike the matter from the trial calendar, and (c) direct the plaintiff to appear for a deposition and submit to an independent physical examination.
ORDERED that the order dated April 8, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 3, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and those branches of the defendants' motion which were to (a) vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial, (b) strike the matter from the trial calendar, and (c) direct the plaintiff to appear for a deposition and submit to an independent physical examination are granted.
On July 8, 2010, the plaintiff was operating his motorcycle northbound on West Street in Manhattan. As he approached the intersection of West Street and North Moore Street, with a green traffic light, the plaintiff attempted to go through the intersection and was struck by an automobile operated by the defendant Tenzin Choku and owned by the defendant I and I Cab Corp. Choku had been traveling southbound on West Street when, as he attempted to make either a U-turn or a left turn at the intersection, he entered the northbound lane of West Street and collided with the plaintiff.
After issue was joined, but prior to the completion of discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants opposed the motion. In an order dated April 8, 2011, the Supreme Court granted the motion, and the defendants appeal from that order. Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, to (a) vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial, (b) strike the matter from the trial calendar, and (c) direct the plaintiff to appear for a deposition and submit to an independent physical examination. In an order dated June 3, 2011, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the defendants' motion, and the defendants also appeal from that part of the order.
In support of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that he had the right of way, that he was entitled to anticipate that Choku would obey the traffic laws which required Choku to yield, and that Choku's failure to yield was the proximate cause of the accident ( see Ahern v. Lanaia, 85 A.D.3d 696, 924 N.Y.S.2d 802; Vainer v. DiSalvo, 79 A.D.3d 1023, 914 N.Y.S.2d 236; Loch v. Garber, 69 A.D.3d 814, 893 N.Y.S.2d 233; Palomo v. Pozzi, 57 A.D.3d 498, 869 N.Y.S.2d 153). The plaintiff also made a prima facie showing that he was free of comparative fault ( see Bonilla v. Gutierrez, 81 A.D.3d 581, 915 N.Y.S.2d 634; Roman v. A1 Limousine, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 552, 907 N.Y.S.2d 251).
In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was at fault in the happening of the accident ( see Vainer v. DiSalvo, 79 A.D.3d at 1024, 914 N.Y.S.2d 236; Yelder v. Walters, 64 A.D.3d 762, 764, 883 N.Y.S.2d 290). To the extent the defendants suggest the possibility that the accident might have been avoided, or that the plaintiff may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adobea v. Junel
... ... those circumstances, any conclusion that the rate of speed Ahmed was traveling contributed to the accident would be mere speculation ( see Colandrea v. Choku, 94 A.D.3d 1034, 1036, 943 N.Y.S.2d 166;see e.g. Rahaman v. Abodeledhman, 64 A.D.3d at 553–554, 883 N.Y.S.2d 259;Strocchia v. City of New ... ...
-
Moses v. B & E Lorge Family Trust
... ... 302304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 745, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589 ; see Colandrea v. Choku, 94 A.D.3d 1034, 1036, 943 N.Y.S.2d 166 ). Under the 147 A.D.3d 1045circumstances of this case, including the defendants' prompt motion to ... ...
-
Bernard–Cadet v. Gobin
...Gobin were forged. In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of [943 N.Y.S.2d 166] the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case that the hearing j......
-
Figueroa v. Hentschll
... ... that defendant's failure to yield was the proximate cause ... of the accident (Colandrea v Choku, 94 A.D.3d 1034, ... 1035 [2d Dept 2012]) ... To the ... extent defendants suggest the possibility that the accident ... ...