| Palomo v Pozzi |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09572 [57 AD3d 498] |
| December 2, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Sara Palomo, Respondent, v Michael J. Pozzi,Appellant. |
—[*1] Wallace, Witty, Frampton & Veltry, P.C., Brentwood, N.Y. (Robert H. Frampton of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 4, 2007, which denied his motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The parties were involved in an automobile accident at the intersection of Suffolk Avenue andPeters Boulevard in Islip. The plaintiff was traveling in the westbound lane of Suffolk Avenue andintended to make a left turn onto Peters Boulevard. The defendant was traveling straight in theeastbound lane of Suffolk Avenue. The plaintiff alleged that she attempted to make the left-hand turnwhen the defendant's vehicle was about three car lengths away from the intersection. The plaintiff didnot know the rate of speed at which the defendant's vehicle was traveling. The defendant stated that hewas traveling at the rate of speed of about 30 miles per hour, and that the plaintiff attempted to makethe left turn when he was about 1½ vehicle lengths from the intersection. The defendant movedfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint contending that the plaintiff's violation of the Vehicleand Traffic Law § 1141 was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Courtdenied the motion. We reverse.
The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by [*2]establishing that the plaintiff violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1141 when she made a left turn directly into the path of the defendant's vehicle as the defendant'svehicle was legally proceeding into the intersection with the right-of-way (see Spivak v Erickson, 40 AD3d 962,963 [2007]; Aristizabal v Aristizabal, 37AD3d 503, 504 [2007]; Berner vKoegel, 31 AD3d 591, 592 [2006]; Carabella v Saad, 29 AD3d 618, 619 [2006]). The defendant wasentitled to anticipate that the plaintiff would obey the traffic laws which required her to yield (seeAristizabal v Aristizabal, 37 AD3d at 504; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593, 595 [2004]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Fisher and Eng, JJ.,concur.