| Rankel v Saccardo |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07285 [100 AD3d 613] |
| November 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marcella A. Rankel et al., Respondents, v James A.Saccardo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gruenberg & Kelly, P.C., Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (John Aviles of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated December 15, 2011, whichdenied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
On February 23, 2009, at the intersection of County Road 111 and Gordon Street inBrookhaven, the plaintiff Marcella A. Rankel (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly wasinjured when the vehicle she was operating collided with a vehicle operated by the defendant.The traffic that was proceeding in the injured plaintiff's direction was controlled by a stop sign atthe intersection, while the traffic that was proceeding in the defendant's direction was notgoverned by any traffic control device. The injured plaintiff testified at her deposition that shestopped at the stop sign before entering the intersection, and did not see the defendant's vehicleprior to the collision. At his deposition, the defendant testified that he first saw the injuredplaintiff's vehicle less than one second before the accident, when it was already in theintersection.
The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bypresenting uncontroverted evidence that the injured plaintiff proceeded into the intersectionwithout yielding the right-of-way, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see Zuleta v Quijada, 94 AD3d876 [2012]; Martin v Ali, 78AD3d 1135 [2010]; Thompson vSchmitt, 74 AD3d 789 [2010]; Yelder v Walters, 64 AD3d 762 [2009]). In opposition, theplaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the defendant's alleged comparativefault (see Yelder v Walters, 64 AD3d at 762; Jaramillo v Torres, 60 AD3d 734, 735 [2009]; DeLuca v Cerda, 60 AD3d 721[2009]; Meliarenne v Prisco, 9AD3d 353, 353 [2004]; Le Claire v Pratt, 270 AD2d 612, 613 [2000]; Lupowitzv Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Balkin,Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.