Uribe v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc., 129 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Uribe v. Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc., 129 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Estate of Bachman v. Hong (nyappdiv, 2019-02-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Bachman v. Hong
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
In this action arising from a motor vehicle accident, plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment against defendant on the issue of liability, by submitting her affidavit averring that, at the time of the accident, she was a passenger in a car driven by defendant, and that defendant caused the accident by failing to stop at a steady red light at an intersection and hitting a second vehicle ( see Uribe v Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc. , 129 AD3d 509, 509 [1st Dept 2015]; Pace v Robinson , 88 AD3d 530, 531 [1st Dept 2011].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andres Uribe, Respondent,
v.
Pronto Gas Heating Supplies, Inc., Et Al., Appellants
15408 22713/12.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 11, 2015.
129 A.D.3d 509
Tom, Renwick, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 17, 2014, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no dispute that defendants’ truck failed to stop at a red traffic light, and hit the side of plaintiff’s vehicle as he was driving through the intersection with a green light in his favor. Defendant driver testified that he was unable to stop the truck in time to avoid the collision, because a bottle had become stuck under the brake pedal, so that he had to use the emergency brake. Defendant driver’s failure to yield the right of way to plaintiff in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 established his negligence (see Pace v Robinson, 88 AD3d 530 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff, who averred that he was driving at the speed limit, and "who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that other vehicles would stop at the red lights[*510] against them, and he had no duty to watch for and avoid one that failed to do so” (Tiefenthaler v Islam, 66 AD3d 588, 589 [1st Dept 2009]).

Defendants’ speculation concerning what plaintiff might have been able to do to avoid the accident is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see id.).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.