Hankerson v Harris-Camden Term. Equip. Inc

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Hankerson v Harris-Camden Term. Equip. Inc 2018 NY Slip Op 32764(U) October 26, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 153054/2018 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 153054/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART IAS MOTION 22 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X BARBARA HANKERSON, INDEX NO. 153054/2018 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/24/2018 -vHARRIS-CAMDEN TERMINAL EQUIPMENT INC, ROBERT ESPOTI Defendant. 002 MOTION SEQ. NO. DECISION AND ORDER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. ADAM SIL VERA: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 JUDGMENT-SUMMARY were read on this motion to/for Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, is granted on the issue of liability against defendant. Plaintiffs motion contends that on February 27, 2018, at the intersection of West 57th Street and 9th Avenue in the County, City and State of New York, a vehicle operated by Robert J. Espoti and owned by Harris-Camden Terminal Equipment, turned right from Ninth Avenue onto West 57th Street, struck and seriously injured plaintiff Barbara G. Hankerson, while she was a lawful pedestrian in the crosswalk with the pedestrian signal in her favor. Defendants oppose the motion. "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Wine grad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Once such entitlement has been demonstrated by the moving party, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to "demonstrate by adruissible evidence the 153054/2018 HANKERSON, BARBARA G. vs. HARRIS-CAMDEN TERMINAL Motion No. 002 1 of 4 Page 1of4 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 153054/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure ... to do [so]" (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of negligence, and the burden shifts to defendants to raise a triable issue of fact. A plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by offering evidence that they were a pedestrian within a crosswalk, with the light in their favor, when they were struck by a defendant's vehicle (Beamud v Gray 45 AD3d 257 [1st Dep't] [finding that a lawful pedestrian in a crosswalk who was struck by a turning vehicle was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability]). Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1130(1), "[w]henever any highway has been divided into two or more roadways by leaving an intervening space or by a physical barrier or clearly indicated dividing section so constructed as to impede vehicular traffic, every vehicle shall be driven only upon the right-hand roadway unless directed o< permitted to use another roadway by official traffic-control devices or police offers. No vehicle shall be driven over, across, or within any such dividing space, barrier, or section, except through an opening in such physical barrier or dividing section or. space or at a crossover or intersection, as established, unless specifically authorized by public authority." Violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") constitutes negligence per se (See Flores v City ofNew York, 66 AD3d 599 [1st Dep't 2009]). VTL 1146 places a duty upon motorists to exercise due care in their operation of a motor vehicle and avoid colliding into any pedestrian. Here, plaintiff avers that she was in the crosswalk, with the pedestrian light in her favor walking her service dog, when defendant attempted to turn and struck plaintiff and her service dog, leading to plaintiff's "serious injury" and the within the crosswalk. In support of her motion 153054/2018 HANKERSON, BARBARA G. vs. HARRIS-CAMDEN TERMINAL Motion No. 002 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 153054/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 plaintiff attaches the certified NYC Police Accident Report which records that defendant "states he was making right turn and did not see the pedestrian and her dog crossing the street. Pedestrian states she was walking with cross-light in her favor and that the driver of vehicle 1 (defendant) did make right turn hitting her dog, and pulling her underneath truck" (Mot, Exh B). Thus, plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of defendant's negligence. In opposition, defendants claim that "it is not entirely clear at this juncture, upon information and belief, if plaintiff was injured it was due to her failure to release the leash after her dog was impacted, not due to her being impacted by the vehicle" (Aff in Op, ,-i 32). However, plaintiff has demonstrated that it was a lawful pedestrian in the cross-walk at the time of the accident with the pedestrian sigrial in her favor. Plaintiff's walking of her dog does not obviate defendant of their duty of due care in the ')peration of their vehicle and to avoid colliding into plaintiff. Plaintiff has demonstrated that defendant driver Espoti has violated the VTL. The Court of Appeals has held that a plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of a defendant's liability even if a defendant raises an issue of fact regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence (Rodriguez v City of New York, 31NY3d312 [2018]). The issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence is addressed and determined only when considering the damages that a defendant owes to a plaintiff (id. at 3). Thus, a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is appropriate regardless of plaintiff's potential comparative negligence. Thus, plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie showing of defendant's negligence and defendant has failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, on the issue of liability, as against defendants is granted. It appearing to the court that plaintiff is 153054/2018 HANKERSON, BARBARA G. vs. HARRIS-CAMDEN TERMINAL Motion No. 002 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 153054/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 entitled to judgment on liability and that the only triable issues of fact arising on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment relate to the amount of damages to which plaintiff is entitled, it is: ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted on the issue of liability as against defendants; and it is further ORDERED that all parties appear for a Compliance Conference on December 19, 2018, in room 103 of 80 Centre Street at 9:30AM; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision/Order upon plaintiff with notice of entry. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court. 10/26/2018 ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C. DATE NON-FINAL DISPOSITION CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT GRANTED D DENIED GRANTED IN PART 153054/2018 HANKERSON, BARBARA G. vs. HARRIS-CAMDEN TERMINAL Motion No. 002 4 of 4 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 4 of 4

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.