Lilaj v. Ferentinos
| Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-09586 |
| Citation | 126 A.D.3d 947,7 N.Y.S.3d 172,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02457 |
| Parties | Krisanthi LILAJ, respondent, v. Harry FERENTINOS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum ], of counsel), for appellant.
The Lambrou Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Lambros Y. Lambrou of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This action to recover damages for personal injuries arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on January 2, 2013, at the intersection of 21st Avenue and 36th Street in Astoria. The plaintiff was driving on 21st Avenue, when her vehicle collided with the vehicle operated by the defendant, who was driving on 36th Street. It is undisputed that a stop sign governs traffic proceeding on 36th Street at the subject intersection, but that no traffic device governs traffic proceeding on 21st Avenue. Following the accident, the plaintiff commenced this action. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.
The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant drove into an intersection controlled by a stop sign without yielding the right-of-way to her approaching vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]; Amalfitano v. Rocco, 100 A.D.3d 939, 954 N.Y.S.2d 644 ; Czarnecki v. Corso, 81 A.D.3d 774, 916 N.Y.S.2d 828 ). As the driver with the right-of-way, the plaintiff was entitled to assume that the defendant would obey the traffic laws requiring him to yield (see Martin v. Ali, 78 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 912 N.Y.S.2d 610 ; Mohammad v. Ning, 72 A.D.3d 913, 914, 899 N.Y.S.2d 356 ).
In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the defendant testified at his deposition that he came to a stop at the stop sign before proceeding into the intersection, the question of whether the defendant stopped at the stop sign is not dispositive, since the evidence established that he failed to yield even if he did stop (see Amalfitano v. Rocco, 100 A.D.3d at 940, 954 N.Y.S.2d 644 ; Czarnecki v. Corso, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Am. United Transp., Inc.
...not see the vehicle driven by Abreu before the impact (see Pivetz v. Brusco , 145 A.D.3d at 808, 43 N.Y.S.3d 457 ; Lilaj v. Ferentinos , 126 A.D.3d 947, 948, 7 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; Puri v. Solomon , 123 A.D.3d 685, 686, 998 N.Y.S.2d 200 ; Zuleta v. Quijada , 94 A.D.3d at 877, 943 N.Y.S.2d 111 ). ......
-
Balladares v. City of N.Y.
...Kraynova v. Lowy, 166 A.D.3d 600, 602, 87 N.Y.S.3d 653 ; Hatton v. Lara, 142 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 37 N.Y.S.3d 604 ; Lilaj v. Ferentinos, 126 A.D.3d 947, 7 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; Williams v. Hayes, 103 A.D.3d 713, 714, 959 N.Y.S.2d 713 ). "A driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that ......
-
Fuertes v. City of N.Y.
...the driver failed to yield after initially stopping (see Hatton v. Lara, 142 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 37 N.Y.S.3d 604 ; Lilaj v. Ferentinos, 126 A.D.3d 947, 7 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; Williams v. Hayes, 103 A.D.3d 713, 714, 959 N.Y.S.2d 713 ). A driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that a......
-
Pivetz v. Brusco
...to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a] ; Lilaj v. Ferentinos, 126 A.D.3d 947, 948, 7 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; Crowe v. Hanley, 123 A.D.3d 755, 757, 999 N.Y.S.2d 84 ; Luke v. McFadden, 119 A.D.3d at 534, 987 N.Y.S.2d 909 ; Hutton v......