| Ferebee v Amaya |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03544 [83 AD3d 997] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Leslie Ferebee et al., Appellants, v Jose Amaya et al.,Appellants, and Damien J. Branch, Respondent. |
—[*1] Frank J. Laurino, Bethpage, N.Y. (Donald F. Malone of counsel), for defendants-appellants. Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Westbury, N.Y. (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), datedMarch 16, 2010, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Damien J. Branch whichwas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and thedefendants Jose Amaya and Jose G. Saravia separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from somuch of the same order as granted the motion of the defendant Damien J. Branch for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the appeal by the defendants Jose Amaya and Jose G. Saravia from so much ofthe order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Damien J. Branch which was forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is dismissed, asthose defendants are not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it isfurther,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
A driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile going in the opposite direction willcross over into oncoming traffic (seeSnemyr v Morales-Aparicio, 47 AD3d 702, 703 [2008]; Lee v Ratz, 19 AD3d 552, 553[2005]). Such a situation constitutes a classic emergency situation, thus implicating theemergency doctrine (see Palma vGarcia, 52 AD3d 795 [2008]; Gajjar v Shah, 31 AD3d 377, 377-378 [2006]). Here, the defendantDamien J. Branch established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submittingevidence sufficient to demonstrate that the accident occurred when the vehicle operated by thedefendant Jose Amaya and owned by the defendant Jose G. Saravia (hereinafter together thedefendants-appellants) suddenly crossed the double-yellow line and entered Branch's lane oftraffic (see Palma v Garcia, 52AD3d 795 [2008]; Lee v Ratz,19 AD3d 552 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs and the defendants-appellants failed [*2]to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Branch contributed tothe accident by failing to take appropriate evasive actions (see Sullivan v Mandato, 58 AD3d 714 [2009]; Snemyr v Morales-Aparicio, 47 AD3d702 [2008]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Branch's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Mastro, J.P.,Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.