| McPherson v Chanzeb |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 09112 [123 AD3d 1098] |
| December 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Chalance McPherson, Appellant, v MohammadChanzeb, Respondent. |
Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y., of counsel),for appellant.
McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jeffrey M. Pepe andKristina Scotto of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated October 28, 2013,which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On May 6, 2010, a vehicle operated by the plaintiff collided with a vehicle operatedby the defendant at the intersection of 25th Avenue and 100th Street in Queens. At thetime of the accident, the plaintiff was traveling on 100th Street, which had a stop sign tocontrol entry into the intersection, while the defendant was traveling on 25th Avenue,which had no traffic control device at that location. Although the parties' depositionsdiffered in some respects, the testimony of both parties established that the plaintiffentered the intersection without yielding to the defendant's oncoming vehicle, which hadthe right-of-way. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint.
Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a), a driver entering anintersection controlled by a stop sign must yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle thatis already in the intersection or that is approaching so closely as to constitute animmediate hazard. Moreover, a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipatethat other drivers will obey traffic laws that require them to yield (see Kann v Maggies ParatransitCorp., 63 AD3d 792, 793 [2009]; Moreno v Gomez, 58 AD3d 611, 612 [2009]; Palomo v Pozzi, 57 AD3d498 [2008]). Here, the defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff's vehicle proceeded into theintersection without yielding the right-of-way to his approaching vehicle, in violation ofthe statute (see Harris vLinares, 106 AD3d 873 [2013]; Briggs v Russo, 98 AD3d 547 [2012]; Gallagher v McCurty, 85AD3d 1109, 1110 [2011]). The plaintiff's speculative assertions in opposition to themotion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Thompson v Schmitt, 74AD3d 789, 790 [2010]; Rieman v Smith, 302 AD2d 510, 511 [2003]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ.,concur.