| Martin v Ali |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08908 [78 AD3d 1135] |
| November 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Victor Martin, Respondent, v Mustafa Ali et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Vladimir & Associates, P.C., Deer Park, N.Y. (Richard Vladimir of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), enteredAugust 20, 2009, as, upon vacating, upon reargument, the determination in an order entered April30, 2009, denying, as untimely, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint,denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits.
Ordered that the order entered August 20, 2009, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, with costs, and, upon reargument, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the vehicle he was operating collided at anintersection with a vehicle owned by the defendant Deokee Maras and operated by the defendantMustafa Ali. The plaintiff was traveling on a one-way road which was controlled by a stop signat the intersection, while the defendant driver was traveling on an intersecting one-way road,which was not controlled by any traffic device. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that hestopped at the stop sign before entering the intersection, and that he did not see the defendants'vehicle prior to the collision. The plaintiff also stated that, due to vehicles parked on the curb, hecould only see 12 feet along the intersecting road to check on the cross traffic. The plaintifftestified that he observed the defendants' vehicle approximately two seconds before the collision,when it was right "on top of" the plaintiff's vehicle. At his deposition, the defendant driver statedthat he first saw the plaintiff's vehicle "a millisecond" before the accident, when it was onlyapproximately one foot away from his vehicle.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law byestablishing that the plaintiff proceeded into the intersection without yielding the right-of-way, inviolation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Jaramillo v Torres, 60 AD3d734 [2009]; Maliza v Puerto-Rican Transp. Corp., 50 AD3d 650 [2008]; Exime vWilliams, 45 AD3d 633 [2007]; Gergis v Miccio, 39 AD3d 468 [2007]). Thequestion of whether the plaintiff stopped at the stop sign is not dispositive, since the evidenceestablished that he failed to yield even if he did stop (see Mohammad v Ning, 72 AD3d913 [2010]; McCain v Larosa, 41 [*2]AD3d 792 [2007];Marcel v Chief Energy Corp., 38 AD3d 502 [2007]). As the driver with the right-of-way,the defendant driver was entitled to anticipate that the plaintiff would obey the traffic law whichrequired him to yield (see DeLuca v Cerda, 60 AD3d 721 [2009]; Maliza vPuerto-Rican Transp. Corp., 50 AD3d 650 [2008]; Hull v Spagnoli, 44 AD3d 1007[2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to thedefendant driver's alleged comparative negligence (see Batts v Page, 51 AD3d 833[2008]; Grossman v Spector, 48 AD3d 750 [2008]; McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18AD3d 721 [2005]; Ishak v Guzman, 12 AD3d 409 [2004]; Meliarenne v Prisco, 9AD3d 353 [2004]). Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court should have granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.P., Dickerson,Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.