Opinion
2015-06-11
Andres URIBE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. PRONTO GAS HEATING SUPPLIES, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
The Law Offices of Edward M. Eustace, White Plains (Christopher M. Yapchanyk of counsel), for appellants. Weiss & Rosenbloom, P.C., New York (Erik L. Gray of counsel), for respondent.
The Law Offices of Edward M. Eustace, White Plains (Christopher M. Yapchanyk of counsel), for appellants.Weiss & Rosenbloom, P.C., New York (Erik L. Gray of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 17, 2014, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
There is no dispute that defendants' truck failed to stop at a red traffic light, and hit the side of plaintiff's vehicle as he was driving through the intersection with a green light in his favor. Defendant driver testified that he was unable to stop the truck in time to avoid the collision, because a bottle had become stuck under the brake pedal, so that he had to use the emergency brake. Defendant driver's failure to yield the right of way to plaintiff in violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1142 established his negligence ( see Pace v. Robinson, 88 A.D.3d 530, 930 N.Y.S.2d 581 [1st Dept.2011] ). Plaintiff, who averred that he was driving at the speed limit, and “who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that other vehicles would stop at the red lights against them, and he had no duty to watch for and avoid one that failed to do so” (Tiefenthaler v. Islam, 66 A.D.3d 588, 589, 888 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept.2009] ).
Defendants' speculation concerning what plaintiff might have been able to do to avoid the accident is insufficient to raise an issue of fact ( see id.).