| Anastasi v Terio |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04182 [84 AD3d 992] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Louis B. Anastasi, Appellant, v Anthony A. Terio et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.),dated June 10, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint isdenied.
This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of 43rdAvenue and 167th Street in Queens. The traffic proceeding in the same direction as the plaintiff'svehicle was controlled by a stop sign, while the traffic proceeding in the same direction as thedefendants' vehicle was not controlled by any traffic device. The plaintiff's decedent was sittingin the back seat of the vehicle operated by the plaintiff.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendants failed to submit evidencesufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (seeWinegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). "There can be more than oneproximate cause of an accident" (Cox vNunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427 [2005]). Although a stop sign governed the intersection fortraffic proceeding in the direction that the plaintiff's vehicle traveled, triable issues of fact exist asto whether the defendant driver was free from negligence and, if not, whether that negligence wasa proximate cause of the accident (seeMyles v Blain, 81 AD3d 798 [2011]; Kim v Acosta, 72 AD3d 648 [2010]; Virzi v Fraser, 51 AD3d 784[2008]; Campbell-Lopez v Cruz, 31AD3d 475 [2006]; Cox vNunez, 23 AD3d 427 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.