| Vazquez v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02675 [94 AD3d 870] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jacqueline Espinal Vazquez, Respondent, v New York CityTransit Authority et al., Appellants, and Manuel Reinoso, Respondent. (Action No. 1.) GEICOIndemnity Company, as Subrogee of Manuel Reinoso, Plaintiff, v MTA Bus Company et al.,Appellants. (Action No. 2.) |
—[*1] Anthony J. Montiglio, Mineola, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.
In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, which were joined fortrial, the defendants New York City Transit Authority, MTA Bus Company, and Donna M.Nelson appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated May 10,2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all crossclaims insofar as asserted against them in action No. 1 and dismissing the complaint in actionNo. 2.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by theplaintiff-respondent and the defendant-respondent, and the motion of the defendants New YorkCity Transit Authority, MTA Bus Company, and Donna M. Nelson for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them in action No. 1 anddismissing the complaint in action No. 2 is granted.
A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey thetraffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way (see Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1128 [a]; § 1143; Bonilla v Calabria, 80 AD3d 720 [2011]; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593,595 [2004]). Although a driver with the right-of-way has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid acollision (see Yelder v Walters, 64AD3d 762, 764 [2009]; Bonilla vCalabria, 80 AD3d 720 [2011]), a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds toreact to a vehicle that has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid thecollision (see Vainer v DiSalvo, 79AD3d 1023, 1024 [2010]; Yelder v Walters, 64 AD3d at 764).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants New York City TransitAuthority, MTA Bus Company, and Donna M. Nelson (hereinafter collectively the [*2]appellants) demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgmentas a matter of law with evidence that a bus owned by the New York City Transit Authority andthe MTA Bus Company and operated by Nelson was lawfully proceeding northbound in theservice lane of Woodhaven Boulevard and that a vehicle operated by Manuel Reinoso, adefendant in action No. 1, in which the plaintiff in action No. 1, Jacqueline Espinal Vazquez, wasa passenger, illegally entered the service lane without yielding the right-of-way to the appellants'bus, and that, within seconds, the two vehicles collided (see Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1128 [a]; § 1143; Jaramillo v Torres, 60 AD3d 734, 735 [2009]; Maliza v Puerto-Rican Transp. Corp.,50 AD3d 650, 651-652 [2008]). In opposition, neither Vazquez nor Reinoso raised a triableissue of fact with respect to the appellants' alleged negligence (see Jaramillo v Torres, 60AD3d at 735; Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291, 292 [1998]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court should have granted the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them in action No. 1 and dismissing thecomplaint in action No. 2. Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.