Reyes v Amato

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Reyes v Amato 2018 NY Slip Op 32799(U) November 1, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156899/2014 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. [* 1] INDEX NO. 156899/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART IAS MOTION 22 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X MARLENY REYES, LENIN ROSARIO INDEX NO. 156899/2014 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/03/2018 -vMOTION SEQ. NO. CINDY AMATO, ALAJDIN MAMUDOSKI, 003 Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. ADAM SIL VERA: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 58, 59 JUDGMENT-SUMMARY were read on this motion to/for Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that plaintiff on the counterclaim's motion for an order for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint on the basis that plaintiff on the counterclaim did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff is denied. This action stems from a motor vehicle incident which occurred on June 8, 2012, on Bryant Avenue at or near its intersection with Lafayette Avenue, in Bronx County, City and State of New York, when a vehicle operated by defendant, Alajdin Mamudoski, and owned by defendant, Cindy Amato, allegedly failed to yield the right of way at a stop sign and struck a vehicle operated by plaintiff, Lenin Rosario, carrying passenger plaintiff, Marleny Reyes, that was proceeding through the intersection with right of way and led to the serious injury of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the automobile accident which occurred on June 8, 2012. Defendants joined issue by service of 156899/2014 REYES, MARLENY vs. AMATO, CINDY Motion No. 003 Page 1of4 1 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 156899/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2018 answering papers and filed a counterclaim against plaintiff, Lenin Rosario, alleging that plaintiff, Marleny Reyes, sustained the injuries alleged due to the culpable conduct of plaintiff, Rosario. Here, plaintiff, Rosario, claims that there is no evidence to dispute the fact that defendant, Mamudoski, breached his duty to yield and is the sole proximate cause of the underlying accident. 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" (Winegrad 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 admissible evidence the 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 of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ("YTL") constitutes negligence per se (See Flores v City of New York, 66 AD3d 599 [1st Dep't 2009]). Pursuant to YTL 1142(a) "every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop ... and after having stopped shall yield the right of way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection." The First Department Appellate Division has found that "when a driver, who approaches an intersection with a stop sign, fails to yield the right of way to another vehicle who approaches the same intersection from another street without a traffic control device, he/she violates Traffic Law Section 1140 and is thus guilty of negligence as a matter oflaw" (Nevarez v S.R.M Mgt Corp., 58 AD3d 295, 297 [1st Dept 2008]). Here, plaintiff, Rosario, alleges that defendant, Mamudoski, violated the YTL when he failed to yield the right of way at the stop sign on Bryant Avenue at or near its intersection with 156899/2014 REYES, MARLENY vs. AMATO, CINDY Motion No. 003 Page 2 of 4 2 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 156899/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2018 Lafayette Avenue. In support of his motion, plaintiff, Rosario, submits his own deposition, in addition to that of plaintiff, Marleny Reyes, and defendant, Alajdin Mamudoski (Mot, Exh B, C, and D). Plaintiff, Rosario, testified that he saw defendant's vehicle stopped at the stop sign on Bryant Avenue and plaintiffs' vehicle proceeded straight through the intersection, as there was no stop sign on Lafayette Avenue, when plaintiffs' vehicle was struck by defendant's vehicle (id., Exh C at 11-13 & 18-20). Plaintiff, Reyes, testified that plaintiff, Rosario, was traveling at about 20-25 mph and did not change his speed while traveling through the intersection, when defendant's vehicle impacted the driver's side of plaintiffs' vehicle (id, Exh Bat 33-40). Defendant testified that he stopped at the stop sign and then proceeded to move forward in an attempt to turn left, when his vehicle struck plaintiffs' vehicle (id., Exh D at 10-21). The deposition of plaintiffs and defendant driver demonstrates that defendant did not yield traffic for plaintiffs' vehicle and thus violated the YTL. As such, plaintiffs have demonstrated defendant's prima facie negligence and the burden shifts to defendant to raise an issue of fact. Here, defendant's opposition points to the deposition of defendant, Alajdin Mamudoski, who testified that both Lafayette Avenue and Bryant Avenue have stop signs (id., at 10). Thus, defendant has raised an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff, Rosario, also had a duty to yield at the intersection. Plaintiffs motion for an order granting plaintiff, Lenin Rosario, summary judgment to dismiss defendant's complaint is denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff on the counterclaim's motion for an order for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint on the basis that plaintiff on the counterclaim did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff is denied; and it is further 156899/2014 REYES, MARLENY vs. AMATO, CINDY Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 003 3 of 4 [* 4] INDEX NO. 156899/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2018 ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, defendant shall serve a copy of this Decision/Order upon plaintiff with notice of entry. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court. 11/1/2018 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ HON. ADAivi S•LVEKA CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 156899/2014 REYES, MARLENY vs. AMATO, CINDY Motion No. 003 D D J.$.0 0 OTHER REFERENCE Page 4 of 4 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.