Snemyr v. W.A. Morales-Aparicio

• Decision Date: 15 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. 2006-10563,2006-10563
• Citation: 47 A.D.3d 702,2008 NY Slip Op 254,850 N.Y.S.2d 489
• Parties: KAREN SNEMYR et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. W.A. MORALES-APARICIO et al., Respondents, and ELLEN K. VALENTI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

47 A.D.3d 702

850 N.Y.S.2d 489

2008 NY Slip Op 254

KAREN SNEMYR et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. W.A. MORALES-APARICIO et al., Respondents, and ELLEN K. VALENTI, Appellant.

No. 2006-10563

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided January 15, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an

order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated October 3, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of the defendants W.A. Morales-Aparicio and Galileo I. Aparicio, and the defendant Ellen K. Valenti separately appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiffs and the defendant Ellen K. Valenti by the defendants W.A. Morales-Aparicio and Galileo I. Aparicio, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of the defendants W.A. Morales-Aparicio and Galileo I. Aparicio is granted, and the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendant Ellen K. Valenti is granted.

The infant plaintiff was injured when the vehicle in which she was riding, owned by the defendant Galileo I. Aparicio and operated by the defendant W.A. Morales-Aparicio, was involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle operated by the defendant Ellen K. Valenti. The plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action, and thereafter moved for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of the defendants W.A. Morales-Aparicio and Galileo I. Aparicio (hereinafter the Aparicio defendants). Valenti cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her. The Supreme Court denied the motion and the cross motion. We reverse.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that Morales-Aparicio violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a) by crossing over a double yellow line into an opposing lane of traffic, thereby causing the collision (see Marsicano v Dealer Stor. Corp., 8 AD3d 451, 452 [2004]; Browne v Castillo, 288 AD2d 415 [2001]). "Crossing a double yellow line into the opposing lane of traffic, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a), constitutes negligence as a matter of law, unless justified by an emergency situation not of the driver's own making" (Foster v...