Reyes v. Marchese, 96 A.D.3d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Reyes v. Marchese, 96 A.D.3d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Galagotis v. Armenti (nyappdiv, 2015-11-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Galagotis v. Armenti
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, “ ‘[a] driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle already in the intersection’ ” (Kassim v Uddin, 119 AD3d at 530 , quoting Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872, 872 [2010]), and that driver will not be entitled to summary judgment absent a demonstration that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the other *819 driver’s negligence (see Koeppel-Vulpis v Lucente, 110 AD3d 851, 852 [2013]; Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 926-927 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frey v. Richmond Hill Lumber & Supply
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, every operator of a motor vehicle has an obligation to keep a proper lookout and to see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles (see Paris v Ferri, 122 AD3d 814, 815 [2014]; Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 927 [2012]; Wilson v Rosedom, 82 AD3d 970 [2011]; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872, 872 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lorentz v. Ruiz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, “'[a] driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle already in the intersection’ ” (Kassim v Uddin, 119 AD3d at 530 , quoting Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872, 872 [2010]), and that driver will not be entitled to summary judgment absent a demonstration that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the other driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 in turning left directly into the path of his vehicle which was lawfully present in the intersection (see Koeppel-Vulpis v Lucente, 110 AD3d 851, 852 [2013]…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gorenkoff v. Nagar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Given the conflicting versions in the proffered testimony as to how the accident occurred, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d at 737 ; Burnett v Reisenauer, 107 AD3d 656 [2013]; Maiello v Kirchner, 98 AD3d 481, 483 [2012]; Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 927 [2012]; Fogel v Rizzo, 91 AD3d 706, 707 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stern v. Amboy Bus Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The evidence submitted in support of the motion did not establish that the plaintiff driver was free from comparative fault, and that the defendant driver’s alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 927 [2012]; Simmons v Canady, 95 AD3d 1201, 1203 [2012]; Matamoro v City of New York, 94 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stern v. Amboy Bus Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The evidence submitted in support of the motion did not establish that the plaintiff driver was free from comparative fault, and that the defendant driver’s alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 927 [2012]; Simmons v Canady, 95 AD3d 1201, 1203 [2012]; Matamoro v City of New York, 94 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Al-Mamar v. Terrones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Corp., 83 AD3d 47, 54 [2011]), and, in any event, Terrones and Diaz failed to offer a nonnegligent explanation for the accident, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Olga was comparatively negligent, or establish that the motion was premature (see Binkowitz v Kolb, 135 AD3d 884, 885 [2016]; see also CPLR 3212 [f]). *740 However, Ahmad failed to meet his prima facie burden for summary judgment against Terrones or Diaz. “[A] driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle that allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way” …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosa Lia Reyes
v.
Michael A. Marchese, (And Another Title.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 926
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated February 1, 2011, as denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, the driver of a vehicle intending to turn left “shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is . . . so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” A plaintiff[*927] driver is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if he or she demonstrates that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the defendant driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 (see Gause v Martinez, 91 AD3d 595 [2012]; Gabler v Marly Bldg. Supply Corp., 27 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]). The driver with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield (see Gause v Martinez, 91 AD3d 595 [2012]; Ahern v Lanaia, 85 AD3d 696 [2011]; Loch v Garber, 69 AD3d 814, 816 [2010]). However, a driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle that allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way (see Wilson v Rosedom, 82 AD3d 970 [2011]; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872 [2010]; Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427 [2005]).

Here, in support of her summary judgment motion, the plaintiff submitted deposition testimony and an excerpt of a surveillance video depicting the accident that failed to establish that the defendant Michael A. Márchese’s alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Fogel v Rizzo, 91 AD3d 706 [2012]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341 [2011]; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d at 873). In light of the plaintiffs failure to meet her prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants Márchese and A-Val Architectural Metal Corp., which is Marchese’s employer and the owner of the vehicle driven by Márchese. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.