Manjares v County of Suffolk

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Manjares v County of Suffolk 2012 NY Slip Op 32480(U) September 25, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 45109/2008 Judge: William B. Rebolini Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Sh0l1 fonn Order SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 7 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: WILLIAM B. REBOLINI Justice Motion Sequence No: 005; MD Claudia ManJarcs, PlainLift~ Motion Date: 5/1/12 Submitted: 5/22/12 -againstIndex No.: 45109/2008 County ofSuflolk, Suffolk County Department of Public Works Transp0l1ation Division, Hector G. Soto, Nicholas Migliore and Jean Mighore, Defendants . .Jean B. Migliore and Nicholas Mighore, Plainti ffs, -agaillstCounty of Suffolk, Suf(olk County Department of Public Works Transporlation Division and Hector Solo, Defendants . .\1ariccl Donuzar, Plaintiffs, -againstSuffolk County, Suffolk County Transit, SufTolk County Department of Pubhc Works Transportation Division, Hecklor G. Sote, Jean 13. Migliore and Nicholas P. Migliore, Defendants. Attoll1cvs [See Rider Annexed] [* 2] l~'lalli ,\11',\v. Con lIt\' of SlIffo Ik,-~Lill Index No,: -is] 09/2008 Page 2 Upon tile following p,lpers numbered 1 to 35 read upon this Illotionto amend plc,ldings ,lild I~)rslll1lllJaryjudgl1lcnl: Notice ofMution and supporting papers, I - 25; Answering Anid;IVlts ,lnd supporting p,lpers, 2(l - 27,28 - 20, Replying Affidavits and supporting papers. 3{) - 35, It IS ORDERED that the branch orthe motion by ddcllcbnts County ofSun;Jlk. Sufi()lk COllllly Departmcnt of PubliC Works Transportation DiviSion, and Hector Soto for lellve to amend tl\citanswcr· is denied WIthout prejudice to renew upon proper papers within 30 days of the date or thiS order; and it IS further ONDEIU.:D that the branch ofthc motion by deICndants County orSlIJ'folk, Surfolk Cuunty Dep,lrltncnt of Public Works Transportation DiVISion, and I-lector Soto fi)l" slIlnnwry Judgmcnl dismiSSIng the complalilt is denied ThIS action \vas cOlllmenced by pIaliltifTClaudiu Malljares to recover damages lar injuries allegedly sust<lined in a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the interscctlon or Higbie Lime dlld Paurnanake Avenue in Wcst Islip, New York all August), 2008. Plaintiff allegedly W<lSriding in a bus owned by defendants Suff()lk County Department of Public Works Transportation Oi viSIon and County ofSu/Yolk and operated by derendant Hector SOlO when it collided with ,I vcll1cle operated by defendant Jean MIgliore and owned by defcndant Nicholas Migliore. The MiglIOre vclllele was IWlking a lert turn into a shopping center 011Higbie Lane \vhen it was struck by the bus. The Coun Ilotes that by order of this Court (Tanenbaum,.1.) dated May 12, 2009, this action wasjollleJ lor tried \\"Ith <in(lctlon COl1l111('l1ccJ y .lean M igliol"e ;md Nicholas Migl iore unJer index Ilumber 08-451 (J(), b entitled .lei/II IJ. iVltg/iorc ill/d /'Ii'ic!Jolus !vIigliarl! \'. COlllltv (~r,";l!lro!k, Suffolk COlility DepUl"llIu..'llf oj"Fuh/ic Works Tmll"pOl"lutioli Division alld /-/(,c/OI" G. SOfO. DeCelldants Suni)lk County Department of PubliC \Vorks Transponation DIVisIOIl, Coullty orSulliJlk and Hector Soto (hercimdtcr collectively known as the County defendants) now nJOVGI'or 1C:,IVC amend their ansVv'cr to assert the emergency doctnne as an ,1I'firmativc deIGns!:. The Coullty lu (kl~lllLll1ts ~liso move I()r summary judgment dIsmissing the complal1lt ;Igalllst them Oil the ground 11l,ltthere ;In.' no material Issues oflavv· or J~lclwith regard to liabi Ilty, hecmlse co-dcJcnd,lIlllvl1g1ime \\;IS till' sole proximate cause oCtile mutar vehicle aCCIdent. The COLlllty deICndants' submisSIOllS in support ol·tllelr mOll Oil include l:opics oCthe pleadings and tr,mscrip[s orthe p,lrtlcs' deposltlull t(·slilllony. DcJcndallts .ledn ivilgliore ill'lL! Nlcilolc\s MIgliore 0ppOSG tl1\.; brwH;h ur lhG CULlllly dGfi:lldanls' motion lor summary judgment, arguIng tl1,lt an issue or J~lCtexists as tl) whether the bus \VJS opcr;llcd In a re,lsolwbly sale and prudent manner PlaInt 11Talso opposes the County ddcnd,l1lts' ~q)plJc,lllon li)r SlII11l11ary judgment, arguing that an ISSlie or I~lct relll<.\l1lSat the ISSIICol'lldbdllY Pialiltil'l'do(;s 1101oppose the bral1ch of the County tleJcnJants' motion to d111l:ndthe pkadlT1gs. i'v1;lriCL'1 DOll;I:;;]r,;1 plain(IITlI1 a rciclted actIon ,Issigned indcx ii 0\)-11175. subnllls papers oppnsill,:'. II c County dcJclllbnts' motion fix sumlllary .Judgmcnt. However. ,IS Daml".;lr IS not (l party to tillS al:lllH1, her p;lpers wen:: nol conSIdered ill the determination 01· this motlOl1. III ;lddlliolL tile [* 3] ~lalli,ln's y. County of Suffolk. et al Index Nil.: -t51O(j/200S Page 3 upposition papers submitted by coullsel for the MlgiIores JS plcllntifls index if (1)-02926 were not considerGd III tIllS tleterlllmation 111 a rdatcd ,Kllon ClssIgncti .At his eXClminatlon before Irial and 50-11 hearing, SOlO testIfied Lhat he W:IS employed by Inter-County Motor Coach as a Suff;)I~ Transit bus driver, and that on the day of the aCCident he W~lS npcrating a bus which was travel111g northbound on Higbie Lane. He testihed that prior to the ,\ccldellt the bus was travellllg25 to 30 I11llesper hour, and that he observed the Migliore vehicle 20 I1leters away, traveling in the 0pposl1c dJr(:;ction as the bus. He further testified that the Migliore vehicle, without activatlllg the vehicle's tUll1Signal, suddenly made a lell turn In Ihm! 0 fthc bus into a pw-klllg lot ora shopping center. He testified that the right side orthe bus struck the rear passenger portion of the Migliore vehicle, and that the front portion of the Migliore vehicle had reached the entrance to the parking lot. At her examlllation bcf;Jre trial and 50-h hearing, Jean Migliore testified that pnor tll tile accident. she was stopped In the Icilturn lane 0 rsouthbound Higbie Lane, waiting to make a Jell turn mto the parking lot or a shopp1l1g center She testil1cd that she observed the bus travcllllg northbound on Higbie Lane 150 to 200 feet away from the parking lot entrance. She furthel"lestdied that her lell turn Signal was actIvated \vhcn she made the lell turn, and that 80 percent oCher vehicle was already 111 parking lot when the bus struck the rear passenger s](le of her vehicle. She statcd the that she \V85 dnvlllg slowly as there were pedestrians mthe parklllg lot, and that the colliSion C~\llscd hl:r vehicle 10 spin out into the street. As to the branch of the County dcicndants' motion Lor leave to amcnd their allS\VCr, the p;lpers in support or the motion do not contain a copy of the proposed amended answer and, thercfore, the application is insun1cient (see Femalldez v HICO Corp., 24 AD3d 110, 8()4 NYS2d 246 List Dept 2005]; Loe/lller ~'SifllOIlS, 224 AD2d 591, 630 NYS2d 700 [2ei DeptI9%]; Brallch \' Abraham & Strauss Dept. Store, 220 AD2d 474, ()32 NYS2d 168 [2d Dept 1995]) Accord1l1gly, the appllcatlOll by the County defendants for leavc to amend then answer ISdeilled without prejudice to rCllew upon proper papers Within 30 cbys orthe date ofthls order Wnh n:gard 10 the COUllty delcndants' application ()r summary judgment VclllCle and Tr<ln'lc L,IW ~ 1141 provides that a lell turning vehicle lllUSt yield the right or \vay to <.lvclliclc dppm~lChlilg ll"om the 0ppOSlllg direction (see Altern I' Lallaia, 85 AD3d 696, 924 NYS2d 802 pel Lkpt 10 I 1J, Loel1 v Garher, 69 .AD3d 814 81)3 NYS2d 233 [2d Dept 20 I0]; AIII/ollte v Tobias, 3() AD.iLl ()3(), 829 NYSld 153 [ld Dept200Tl: Gabler]1 MarZJl Bldg. Supply Corp., 27 AD3d.:'i 19. S 13 NYS2d 120 [2d Dept 2()06]). Ho\vcvcr, a dnver who has the right oC\vay has a duty to exet"Clse n.'asollablc care 10 avoid n colliSIOn with another vehicle (see Bonilla v Gutierre::., 81 ADJd 581, I) 15 NYS2d 634 [ld Dept 20 II]: Sirot v Troiauo, 66 AD3d 763, 886 N'I!S2d 504 [2d Dept 2009j; COX I' 1Veil, ()() AD3d ()34, 887 NYS2d 170 [2d Dept2009J). Here, the COLll1tydeICndants I~llied to make aprilllilji;cic ShOW111:; r cntitlclllen1to Judgmcnt as a mattcr or law (,)'(-'('IVilsoll I' Roscdo//l. 82 o i-\D3d 7n, 9)9 NYS2d S() [2d Dept 201 1J; [(Ill'is l' Alblf/IO, 38 AD3d S4(), S3~ NYS2d ()74 [~d Dep! 2{J071; Ca/elllille I' Hohler, 263 AD2d 495. 693 NYS2J 622 [2e1Dept 1999]). DeICndant Miglion: tcstiticd that the bus was I SO feet away when she activated her turn signal ~\l1dproceeded to make [* 4] ~'iallilln\S\'. Count\' of Suffolk. et al Index No.: 45109/2008 Page 4 ~llell: turn She also testliled that more than 80 percenl ofhcr VclllClc W:;lSJll the parkmg lot Whetl the accident occulTed, and it ISundIsputed that the right j-J'ontportion ol'thc bus collided with the rCdr (i r M Iglll)rc's vehicle. Thus, t1"1ablcqucstions eXist as to whether deICndant Soto CXCI"Clscd due clre in the operation of the bus and. If not, whether such lack of care ,vas a proximate cause of the accident (see Tapia I' Royal Tours Serl'., JIlC., (l7 AD3d 894, 889 NYS2el 225 [2el Dept 200c)]; Gorham ~,Met/mil 57 AD3d 480, 869 NYS2d [2d Dcpt 2008]). There can be more tkm one proximate cause of an accidcnt. and the issue ofcomparatlvc negligence is generally a question for the Jury to decide (see Todd)' (jodek, 71 AD3d 872, 895 NYS2d 861 [2e1Dcpt 20 IO"lj. As there IS con n lcti ng dcposi ti Oil testi many regardi llg the f~lctssurround 1 ng thc ace icient, the County de lCl1lbnts Lliled to establish f/rill/u/il(:il.' that defendant Migliore's conduct was the sole prOXltl1atc cause oftlw ,lCCldcllt (se(' BOrllkllOW I' Cuff, 48 AD3d 72(" 851 NYS2d 374 [2d Depl2008]; (Jordo}f )' /lollig, 40 ADJd 925, 837 NYS2d 197 [2d Dept 20(n)). Accordingly, the braneh ofthe County dcCcndants' Illation f(Jr summary judgment dismissmg the complaint against them lllust be dClllCd. [lilted: HON. WILI.IAM FINAL I)ISPOSITION __----'L __NON-FINAL B. REIlOLlNI, DISPOSITION J.S.c. [* 5] RIDER Clerk orthc -he \{~ll1k()\vil/.I.~I\V Flrlll, PC 175 E~ISl Shon.: Road (jn~~IL Neck. NY 111):23 L~torn.~y 1"Gr laintifTs, P le:lll n..-'.~1IgJi.0Lc:lnd Nichol~IS Migliore: Vlddll1llr & AssocIates, PC :1137 Deer [)ark Avenue Deer Purk, NY 11729 Altorn!?V ror Plall1tlfTM~lricel Domll,ar: Hcmy j),lvoli, Jr, PLLC :)41 Nmlh Long Ik,ICll Road Rockville Centre, NY 1157() MLun!~yJOl DcCcndants COUlll\! S}I!'I'olk COLllltv Dcpartlncllt orSuCfolk, ()fPublie \Vol'k5..- lr;l1lsU_QJJ~lJioll12Lvl.sj()ll(lmlHecLor Cr. Solo: r-.1ulholland, & Roe Minion :)74 Hillside Avenue V/illlSloll P:lrk, N\{ 115% /\[[(lrneV fOL DelClllL,,!llJ5_ 2::<111 B. Mi~liore and Nlcllol~_lSP. Mli-,Ilon:.'. Russo, i\poznanski & T;lI11b~lscu 87:i Mcrnck Avellue Vv'<.::s[hllt'V.NY 11 :i()() COLlrt

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.