Harmon v Rios

[*1] Harmon v Rios 2014 NY Slip Op 51032(U) Decided on July 1, 2014 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 1, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.


Vanessa Harmon, Respondent,

against

Elizabeth Rios, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), entered November 7, 2011. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a two-car collision, in which a vehicle operated by plaintiff had collided with a vehicle operated by defendant, at the intersection of Palmer Avenue and Decker Avenue. Plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Palmer Avenue, and the traffic in that direction was governed by a stop sign at the intersection with Decker Avenue. Defendant was traveling northbound on Decker Avenue, and the traffic in that direction was not governed by a traffic control device at the intersection with Palmer Avenue. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied the motion.

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Although a stop sign governed the intersection for traffic proceeding in the direction that plaintiff had been traveling, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether defendant was free from negligence (see Virzi v Fraser, 51 AD3d 784 [2008]; Campbell-Lopez v Cruz, 31 AD3d 475 [2006]; Romano v 202 Corp., 305 AD2d 576 [2003]; Hernandez v Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 AD2d 381 [2003]; Siegel v Sweeney, 266 AD2d 200, 202 [1999]). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 01, 2014