| Harris v Linares |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03456 [106 AD3d 873] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Kenneth Harris, Appellant, v Victor Linares,Respondent. |
—[*1]
John C. Buratti, Hicksville, N.Y. (Scott R. Dinstell of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), entered May 2, 2012, whichgranted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was driving his vehicle in East Patchogue, traveling northbound onAmericus Avenue, which was controlled by a stop sign at its intersection withBrookhaven Avenue. The defendant was driving his car westbound on BrookhavenAvenue, which had no traffic control device at its intersection with Americus Avenue.The plaintiff's vehicle collided with the middle of the driver's side of the defendant'svehicle, allegedly injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this actionto recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint.
The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by establishing that the plaintiff's vehicle proceeded into the intersection controlledby a stop sign without yielding the right-of-way to the defendant's approaching vehicle,in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a). The evidence submitted by thedefendant in support of his motion established, prima facie, that the plaintiff failed toproperly observe and yield to cross traffic before proceeding into the intersection (see Briggs v Russo, 98 AD3d547 [2012]; Gallagher vMcCurty, 85 AD3d 1109 [2011]; Mohammad v Ning, 72 AD3d 913, 914 [2010]; Exime v Williams, 45 AD3d633, 634 [2007]; Hull vSpagnoli, 44 AD3d 1007 [2007]; McCain v Larosa, 41 AD3d 792, 793 [2007]). Thedefendant further established, prima facie, that he could not have avoided the collisionbecause he did not have sufficient time to react to the plaintiff's failure to yield the rightof way (see Ducie vIppolito, 95 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2012]; Socci v Levy, 90 AD3d 1020 [2011]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The fact that thedefendant was looking straight ahead in the direction he was traveling does notnecessitate the conclusion that the defendant was negligent, since " 'the defendant driverwho had the right of way was entitled to anticipate that the injured plaintiff would obeythe traffic law requiring [him] to yield' " (Briggs v Russo, 98 AD3d at 548,quoting Hull v Spagnoli, 44 AD3d at 1007; see Kotzias v Panagiotis, 91 AD3d 607 [2012];Gallagher v McCurty, 85 AD3d at 1110; Mohammad v Ning, 72 AD3d[*2]at 914-915; Wesh v Laidlaw, 59 AD3d 534 [2009]; McCain vLarosa, 41 AD3d at 793). Further, the plaintiff's contention that there was a triableissue of fact as to the defendant's negligence because he "failed to reduce his speed" waswholly speculative and "[t]he purported expert's affidavit to th[at] effect [was]conclusory in nature" (McCain v Larosa, 41 AD3d at 793; see Gallagher vMcCurty, 85 AD3d at 1110; see also Exime v Williams, 45 AD3d at 634).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.