People v. Zamot, 179 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Zamot, 179 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clarke v. Condon (nyappdiv, 2011-12-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clarke v. Condon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Here, a rational interpretation of the evidence supported the jury verdict, which found that the defendant driver was not negligent (see Rubino v Scherrer, 68 AD3d 1090, 1091 [2009]; Bagnato v Romano, 179 AD2d 713, 714 [1992]), and that he exercised reasonable care in an effort to comply with the Vehicle and Traffic Law, thereby excusing his violation of the statute (see Schager v Lino Bordi, Inc., 2 AD3d 828 [2003]; Espinal v Sureau, 262 AD2d 523, 524 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Batts v. Page
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Further, the plaintiffs conclusory assertion that the defendant driver was traveling at “a speed greater than reasonable and prudent considering the intersection’s risks and potential hazards,” in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180, is similarly unsupported by the evidence and speculative (see Meliarenne v Prisco, 9 AD3d at 354 ; Zadins v Pommerville, 300 AD2d 1111, 1112 [2002]; Wilke v Price, 221 AD2d 846, 847 [1995]; Bagnato v Romano, 179 AD2d 713, 715 [1992]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wilke v. Price
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · signal: compare · confidence low
As for defendants’ contention that plaintiff, who was traveling within the posted speed limit at the time of the accident, failed to reduce her speed as she approached the intersection in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (e), we note that this provision, read in conjunction with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a), "does not mandate that a driver reduce his or her speed at every intersection, but only when warranted by the conditions presented” (Bagnato v Romano, 179 AD2d 713, 714 , lv denied 81 NY2d 701 ), and there is no proof to support defendants’ speculative and concluso…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Thomas Zamot
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 13, 1992.
179 A.D.2d 713
Published

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.