Griffin v. Pennoyer
Decision Date | 13 March 2008 |
Docket Number | 3059. |
Citation | 49 A.D.3d 341,852 N.Y.S.2d 765,2008 NY Slip Op 02193 |
Parties | TIFFANY GRIFFIN, Respondent, v. CHRISTINA PENNOYER, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff's prediscovery motion for partial summary judgment was not, under the circumstances, premature since defendant failed to demonstrate that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion may exist but could not be stated (see CPLR 3212 [f]).
In support of her motion, plaintiff submitted evidence in admissible form, including her affidavit and a police report containing admissions by defendant, demonstrating that defendant made an abrupt left-hand turn into the path of plaintiff's vehicle, which was passing through an intersection with a green light in its favor and the right-of-way, and that plaintiff was free from any negligence. This evidence, which demonstrated that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, was sufficient to establish plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of which driver was responsible for the accident (see Berner v Koegel, 31 AD3d 591 [2006]).
In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendant's averment that she had a green light in her favor when she attempted to make the left-hand turn did not undercut plaintiff's assertion that she had a green light. Thus, regardless of the color of the light in defendant's direction, plaintiff had the right-of-way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141). Moreover, defendant's conclusory assertion that "[b]efore making the turn I checked to make sure that the way was clear" is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Berner, supra [ ]).
There is no basis, on this record, for finding that bifurcation of the fault and serious injury (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) issues was improper or in any way prejudicial to defendant (see Shinn v Catanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 199 [2003]; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Regno v. City of N.Y.
...Metal Corp. v. Holme, 35 A.D.3d 93, 103 (1st Dep't 2006). See Santana v. Danco Inc., 115 A.D.3d 560 (1st Dep't 2014); Griffin v. Pennoyer, 49 A.D.3d 341 (1st Dep't 2008). An explanation of the conflicting evidence regarding James Regno's work when he was injured that further disclosure migh......
-
Gallo v. Albert
...Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 562, 563 (1st Dep't 2011); Kent v. 534 East llth Street, 80 A.D.3d 106, 114 (1st Dep't 2010); Griffin v. Pennover, 49 A.D.3d 341 (1st Dep't 2008); Global Mins. & Metal Corp. v. Holme, 35 A.D.3d 93, 103 (1st Dep't 2006). Third party plaintiffs, "in short, have not raise......
-
Moore v. URS Corp.
...Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 562, 563 (1st Dep't 2011); Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106, 114 (1st Dep't 2010); Griffin v. Pennoyer, 49 A.D.3d 341, 341 (1st Dep't 2008). UnderC.P.L.R. § 3212(f), however, defendants must show that their depositions of third party defendants or other witn......
-
Pizarro v. Lignelli
...Dev. Corp., 82 A.D.3d 562, 563 (1st Dep't 2011); Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106, 114 (1st Dep't 2010); Griffin v. Pennoyer, 49 A.D.3d 341 (1st Dep't 2008); Global Mins. & Metal Corp. v. Holme, 35 A.D.3d 93, 103 (1st Dep't 2006). Therefore plaintiff has not shown that his need f......