| Falcone v Ibarra |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08582 [67 AD3d 858] |
| November 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| William Falcone et al., Appellants, v Alejandra Ibarra etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marcia K.Raicus of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated July 30, 2008, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with leave to renew after the completionof discovery.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
On February 7, 2008 a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Alejandra Ibarra (hereinafterthe defendant), and owned by the defendant Rural Opportunities, Inc., collided with a vehicleoperated by the plaintiff William Falcone (hereinafter the plaintiff) at the intersection ofMountain Road and State Route 6 in Orange County. At the time of the accident, the vehicleoperated by the defendant was traveling northbound on Mountain Road, which was governed bya stop sign, while the vehicle operated by the plaintiff was traveling eastbound on State Route 6,which was not governed by a stop sign. The posted speed limit on State Route 6 in the vicinity ofthe accident was 55 miles per hour.
On the facts presented, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment asa matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the negligence of the defendant,who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to theplaintiff's vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Grossman v Spector, 48 AD3d750 [2008]; Odumbo v Perera,27 AD3d 709 [2006]). The assertions made by the defendant in her opposing affidavit thatthe vehicle operated by the plaintiff was traveling at an excessive rate of speed when it enteredthe intersection were speculative and, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Exime v Williams, 45 AD3d633 [2007]). Furthermore, the defendant failed to establish that additional discovery wouldyield any facts indicating that the plaintiff was at fault and justify denying the plaintiffs' motion(see CPLR 3212 [f]; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue ofliability. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.