Milka v. Hernandez
| Decision Date | 18 November 1992 |
| Citation | 187 A.D.2d 1031,590 N.Y.S.2d 342 |
| Parties | Thomas P. MILKA and Cheryl Milka, Respondents, v. Dinorah HERNANDEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dixon, De Marie & Schoenborn, P.C. by Dennis Hamilton, Buffalo, for appellant.
Offerman, Mahoney, Cassano, Pigott, Greco & Whelan by Eugene Pigott, Buffalo, for respondents.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, BALIO, BOEHM and DAVIS, JJ.
Plaintiff Thomas P. Milka was injured when the vehicle he was driving collided with defendant's vehicle at the intersection of Swan and Hamburg Streets in the City of Buffalo. Traffic proceeding in plaintiff's direction on Swan Street was controlled by a flashing yellow light, and traffic in defendant's direction on Hamburg Street by a flashing red light. Defendant testified that when she stopped for the first time, she could not see down the street to the right because her view was obstructed by a building. She moved forward and stopped again. Not seeing any vehicles, defendant proceeded into the intersection and collided with plaintiff's vehicle. A disinterested eyewitness testified that she approached the intersection from the opposite direction on Hamburg Street and observed plaintiff's vehicle before it entered the intersection. She was behind a vehicle that remained stopped on Hamburg Street when plaintiff drove into the intersection. The jury found that defendant was not negligent in causing the accident. The trial court set aside that verdict as contrary to the weight of evidence, observing that "I cannot overlook the fact that the defendant in this case had a flashing red light which means that she could not move forward until it was safe to do so."
We conclude that the trial court's determination was reasonable and that it should not be disturbed (see, Kuncio v. Millard Fillmore Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 975, 976, 499 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 608, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 498 N.E.2d 435; McDowell v. Di Pronio, 52 A.D.2d 749, 750, 382 N.Y.S.2d 201). Defendant, upon stopping for the flashing red light, was obliged to proceed with caution and yield to vehicles approaching the intersection to her right (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1140[a]; § 1142[a]. She had a duty to see what, with the proper use of her senses, she should have seen (see, Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N.Y. 39, 42, 116 N.E. 345; Pickard v. Koenigstreuter, 70 A.D.2d 693, 416 N.Y.S.2d 399, appeal dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 652, 421 N.Y.S.2d 202, 396 N.E.2d 484)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathewson v. Bender
...Smalley v. McCarthy, --- A.D.2d ----, 679 N.Y.S.2d 406; Hyppolite v. Guerrier, 232 A.D.2d 456, 648 N.Y.S.2d 166; Milka v. Hernandez, 187 A.D.2d 1031, 590 N.Y.S.2d 342; Weiser v. Dalbo, 184 A.D.2d 935, 585 N.Y.S.2d 124). With regard to the defendant Stephen Bender, the verdict also could not......
-
Bolta v. Lohan
...v. Baker, 112 A.D.2d 510, 490 N.Y.S.2d 916; see also, Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N.Y. 39, 116 N.E. 345; Milka v. Hernandez, 187 A.D.2d 1031, 1032, 590 N.Y.S.2d 342; Weiser v. Dalbo, 184 A.D.2d 935, 585 N.Y.S.2d 124). Since the plaintiff's car was clearly present, and was visible, t......
-
Baker v. Nassau County Police Activity League, Inc.
...he should have seen (see, Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N.Y. 39, 42, 116 N.E. 345; Bolta v. Lohan, supra; Milka v. Hernandez, 187 A.D.2d 1031, 1032, 590 N.Y.S.2d 342). ...
-
Mohamed v. Frische
...approaching vehicle and that he failed to see that which he should have seen with the proper use of his senses (see, Milka v. Hernandez, 187 A.D.2d 1031, 590 N.Y.S.2d 342; Weiser v. Dalbo, 184 A.D.2d 935, 585 N.Y.S.2d 124; see also, Olsen v. Baker, 112 A.D.2d 510, 490 N.Y.S.2d Contrary to t......