| Jaramillo v Torres |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01778 [60 AD3d 734] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Stephany Jaramillo, Respondent, v Natividad Torres et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Taller & Wizman, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Y. David Taller of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 10, 2008, whichdenied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the car she was operating collided at an intersectionwith a car owned by the defendant Natividad Torres and operated by the defendant Jonathan A.Herrera. The traffic proceeding in the plaintiff's direction was controlled by a stop sign at theintersection, while traffic proceeding in Herrera's direction was not controlled by any trafficdevice. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she stopped at the stop sign before enteringthe intersection and did not see Herrera's car prior to the collision. At his deposition, Herreratestified that he first saw the plaintiff's car less than one second before the accident, when it wasalready in the intersection.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bypresenting uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff proceeded into the intersection withoutyielding the right-of-way, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Gorelik v Laidlaw Tr., Inc., 50AD3d 739 [2008]; Maliza vPuerto-Rican Transp. Corp., 50 AD3d 650, 651 [2008]; Exime v Williams, 45 AD3d 633,634 [2007]; Gergis v Miccio, 39AD3d 468, 468-469 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise [*2]a triable issue of fact with respect to Herrera's alleged comparativenegligence (see Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291, 291-292 [1998]; Snow vHowe, 253 AD2d 870, 870-871 [1998]; Maxwell v Land-Saunders, 233 AD2d 303[1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Balkin, JJ.,concur.