Ishak v. Guzman

Decision Date08 November 2004
Docket Number2004-01787.
Citation12 A.D.3d 409,2004 NY Slip Op 08070,784 N.Y.S.2d 600
PartiesSHARIDA ISHAK, Appellant, v. EDWIN F. GUZMAN, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff was traveling westbound on 89th Avenue and the defendant was traveling southbound on 237th Street in Queens when their vehicles collided at the intersection of those roads. It is undisputed that southbound traffic on 237th Street at that intersection was governed by a stop sign, while there was no traffic-control device on 89th Avenue at that location.

Following the commencement of this action and the conduct of discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, contending that the defendant's negligent failure to yield the right-of-way to her approaching vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting undisputed proof that the defendant proceeded into the intersection and failed to yield the right-of-way to her closely-approaching vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Morgan v Hachmann, 9 AD3d 400 [2004]; Meliarenne v Prisco, 9 AD3d 353 [2004]). The defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion. His conclusory assertions that the plaintiff may have been speeding before the collision and may have had time to take evasive action to avoid the accident were completely speculative and were undermined by the evidence in the record (see Meliarenne v Prisco, supra; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Rosado v. Bagnall, 2008 NY Slip Op 31971(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/3/2008), 0005571/2006.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 3, 2008
    ...the right of way constitutes negligence as a matter of law. See, McNamara v. Fishkowitz, 18 A.D.3d 721 (2d Dept. 2005); Ishak v. Guzman, 12 A.D.3d 409 (2d Dept. 2004); Rossani v. Rana, 8 A.D.3d 548 (2d Dept. 2004); Spatola v. Gelco Corp., 5 A.D.3d 469 (2d Dept. 2004). A driver thus is requi......
  • Sukhu v. Marajh, 2009 NY Slip Op 33227(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/9/2009)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 9, 2009
    ...Goemans v. County of Suffolk, 57 A.D.3d 478 (2nd Dept. 2008); McNamara v. Fishkowitz, 18 A.D.3d 721 (2nd Dept. 2005); Ishak v. Guzman, 12 A.D.3d 409 (2nd Dept. 2004); Rossani v. Rana, 8 A.D.3d 548 (2nd Dept. 2004); Spatola v. Gelco Corp., 5 A.D.3d 469 (2nd Dept. 2004). "A driver who fails t......
  • Liao v. Alvarenea, 2007 NY Slip Op 31129(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 4/27/2007)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 27, 2007
    ...the right of way constitutes negligence as a matter of law See, McNamara v. Fishkowitz, 18 A.D.3d 721 (2d Dept. 2005); Ishak v. Guzman, 12 A.D.3d 409 (2d Dept. 2004); Rossani v. Rana, 8 A.D.3d 548 (2d Dept. 2004); Spatola v. Gelco Corp., 5 A.D.3d 469 (2d Dept. 2004). A driver thus is requir......
  • Yang v. Howsal Cab Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 29, 2013
    ...916 N.Y.S.2d 527;Martin v. Ali, 78 A.D.3d 1135, 912 N.Y.S.2d 610;Thompson v. Schmitt, 74 A.D.3d 789, 902 N.Y.S.2d 606;Ishak v. Guzman, 12 A.D.3d 409, 784 N.Y.S.2d 600). Further, a driver is bound to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses and is negligent fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT