Rumanov v. Greenblatt
| Decision Date | 22 June 1998 |
| Citation | 673 N.Y.S.2d 614,251 A.D.2d 566 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 6459 Gregory RUMANOV, Appellant, v. Isaac GREENBLATT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kagan, Josen and Gertel, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Irving Gertel, of counsel), for appellant.
Dombroff & Gilmore, New York, N.Y. (Edward C. DeVivo, of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 14, 1997, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion is granted.
In moving for partial summary judgment, the plaintiff established that the defendant, after bringing his vehicle to a stop at a stop sign at the intersection of East 10th Street and Avenue L in Brooklyn, proceeded into the intersection and collided with the plaintiff's oncoming vehicle, which had the right of way. The plaintiff thus demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a]; Bolta v. Lohan, 242 A.D.2d 356, 661 N.Y.S.2d 286; Maxwell v. Land-Saunders, 233 A.D.2d 303, 649 N.Y.S.2d 809). The defendant's evidence in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Bolta v. Lohan, supra; Maxwell v. Land-Saunders, supra; Dellavecchia v. Zorros, 231 A.D.2d 549, 647 N.Y.S.2d 291; Wilke v. Price, 221 A.D.2d 846, 633 N.Y.S.2d 686), and the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion (see generally, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClelland v. Seery
...of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), and that her negligence was the proximate cause of the collision (see, Rumanov v. Greenblatt, 251 A.D.2d 566, 673 N.Y.S.2d 614; Ponticello v. Wilhelm, 249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 315; Bolta v. Lohan, 242 A.D.2d 356, 661 N.Y.S.2d 286; Nunziata v. Birche......
-
Oneill v. Moran
...Here, the testimony shows Moran failed to see what she should have seen through the proper use of her senses (Rumanov v Greenblatt, 251 A.D.2d 566, 673 N.Y.S.2d 614 [2d Dept 1998]; Nunziata v Btrchell, 238 A.D.2d 555, 656 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2d Dept 1997]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to rais......
-
Kraynova v. Lowy, Index No.: 509904/2016
...291, 679 N.Y.S.2d 420 (2nd Dept. 1998); Snow v. Howe, 253 A.D.2d 870, 678 N.Y.S.2d 357 (2nd Dept. 1998); Rumanov v. Greenblatt, 251 A.D.2d 566, 63 N.Y.S.2d 614 (2nd Dept. 1998); Ponticello v. Wilhelm, 249 A.D.2d 459, 671 N.Y.S.2d 315 (2nd Dept. 1998); Nunziata v. Birchell, 238 A.D.2d 555, 6......
-
Ferrara v. Castro
...and his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Packer v Mirasola, 256 A.D.2d 394; Snow v Howe, 253 A.D.2d 870; Rumanov v Greenblatt, 251 A.D.2d 566; Bolta v Lohan, 242 A.D.2d 356). The defendant's contention that he did not see the plaintiffs approaching car does not excuse ......