| Murphy v Epstein |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03088 [72 AD3d 767] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Victoria F. Murphy, Appellant, v David A. Epstein,Respondent. |
—[*1] John T. Ryan, Riverhead, N.Y. (Robert F. Horvat of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), entered October 28, 2009, which denied hermotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
This action arises from an automobile accident which took place on the morning of October14, 2008, at the intersection of Manhasset Street and Bellmore Avenue in Islip Terrace.Manhasset Street is a two-way roadway which runs east and west, while Bellmore Avenue is atwo-way roadway which runs north and south. The plaintiff, who was traveling east onManhasset Street, alleges that when she arrived at the intersection of Manhasset Street andBellmore Avenue, she brought her vehicle to a complete stop about one foot in front of the stopsign governing eastbound traffic. According to the plaintiff, she was at a complete standstill inthe eastbound lane when her vehicle was struck head-on by the defendant's vehicle, which wasturning left onto Manhasset Street in order to proceed west. The defendant, who was travelingnorth on Bellmore Avenue before he began to execute his turn, claims that he never saw theplaintiff stop at the stop sign, and that at the point of impact, "the front of the plaintiff's vehiclewas just beginning to enter onto the road surface of Bellmore Avenue."
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawon the issue of liability through the submission of her affidavit, which demonstrated that thedefendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (b) and § 1163 (a) by making aleft turn from Bellmore Avenue into the eastbound lane of Manhasset Street, and that thisviolation was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff, who was stopped at a stopsign in the eastbound lane of a two-way roadway, could not have been expected to anticipate thata driver executing a left turn in order to proceed west would turn directly into her lane, ratherthan the westbound lane, and hit her vehicle head-on (cf. Fawcett v Suffolk Transp. Serv., Inc., 55 AD3d 535, 536[2008]).[*2]
In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, thedefendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).Although the defendant averred that the collision occurred as the front of the plaintiff's vehiclewas "just beginning to enter onto the road surface of Bellmore Avenue," he did not deny that hervehicle was still at least partially in the eastbound lane of Manhasset Street at the point ofimpact, or that his vehicle struck her vehicle head-on. Under these circumstances, the defendant'saffidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's allegedviolations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 (a) and § 1142 (a) were a proximatecause of the accident. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.