Hull v. Spagnoli, 44 A.D.3d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Hull v. Spagnoli, 44 A.D.3d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Briggs v. Russo, 98 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1007 Anticipating compliance with traffic laws by drivers5 citing cases3 listed here
  • Briggs v. Russo, 98 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 4 cites
    The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion established, prima facie, that the plaintiff failed to properly observe and yield to cross traffic before proceeding into the intersection (see Mohammad v Ning, 72 AD3d 913,…
  • Czarnecki v. Corso, 81 A.D.3d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Corp., 50 AD3d 650, 652 [2008]; Hull v Spagnoli, 44 AD3d 1007, 1007 [2007]).
  • Joaquin v. Franco, 116 A.D.3d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Likewise, Marino’s deposition testimony that she did not take evasive action in the seconds before impact did not raise a triable issue of fact. “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed…
Eleanore M. Hull
v.
Jessica Spagnoli
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 30, 2007.
Published opinion
44 A.D.3d 1007
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 5, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign controlling traffic in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Gergis v Miccio, 39 AD3d 468 [2007]; Laino v Lucchese, 35 AD3d 672 [2006]; Friedberg v Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., 22 AD3d 522 [2005]; McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721 [2005]; Nolan v Mizrahi, 12 AD3d 430 [2004] ). The injured plaintiff was required to “see that which through proper use of her senses she should have seen” (Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687 [2005] [citation omitted]; see Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]), and the defendant driver who had the right of way was entitled to anticipate that the injured plaintiff would obey the traffic law requiring her to yield (see Platt v Wolman, 29 AD3d 663 [2006]; Dileo v Barreca, 16 AD3d 366 [2005]; Rossani v Rana, 8 AD3d 548 [2004]).

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent (see Hou-Ching Chou v Wong, 34 AD3d 642 [2006]; McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721 [2005]; Ishak v Guzman, 12 AD3d 409 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.