O'Neill v Moran

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

O'Neill v Moran 2019 NY Slip Op 34813(U) July 29, 2019 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Index No. 17-606171 Judge: Joseph Farneti 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. INDEX NO. 606171/2017 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2019 11:17 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2019 SHORT FORM ORDER INDEXNo. 17-606171 CAL.No. l8-02273MV SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK LAS, PART 37 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: MOTION DATE 4-30-19 ADJ. DATE 5~2-19 Hon. JOSEPH FARNETI Acting Justice of theSuprerne Court Mot. Seq.# 004 - MG . ---.. ----- . --- ·------------. --------· ---------------. - .--·X .THOMAS ONEILL, WOOSTER &, WOOSTER, LLP Attomeyfor Plaintiff 666 Old Country Road, Suite 400 Garden City, New York 11530 r Plaintiff, LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER S. ADAMS Attorney for Defendant Young 1 Executive Blvd., Suite 280 Yonkers, New York 10701 - against - LAW OFFlCES Of; KAREN t.·LA WRENCE Attorney for Defendants Moran 878 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 100 Hauppauge, New York 1l 7S8 MEAGHAN MORAN, SCOTT MORAN and JACKLYNYOUNG, . Defendants. -- .------- .-----------. ---· ·--------... -----------------. -----X Upon the fo Ilowing papers read onth is e~filed motion for summary iudginent: ( 1) Notice of Motion/Ordcrto Show Cause by defendant, Jacklyn Young dated April 2, 2019, and supporting papers; (2) Affirmation in Opposition by plaintiff, dated April 18, 2019 and supporting papers; (3) Replying AffilJTiation by defendant. Jacklyn Young, dated May I, 20 I9 ; (and aftc1 heat i11g coos isJJs' 01 al' zit'g'.u11tcnts ·ti, sup pot L of liud opposed to the ncOtiou)~. it is~ · 0 RDERED that the tµ.otion by defendant J~cklyh Young for an. Order~ pursuant to CPLR3 212, granting sumtnatyjudgment dismissing.the corn.plaint artd any cross claims asserted against her~ is grij.Ilted. · ·. · . . This is art acdon to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of a motor vehicle accident that oc,;::urred on Route l 11, near the intersection with East Walnut Street, in .the Town of Islip on I)ecember 22, 2016. It µndisputed thai there. were three vehicles is · - ·4 ·-·-----··-·····---·········-············-··. [* 1] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - · · · · - · · - · ·1· ·of INDEX NO. 606171/2017 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2019 11:17 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2019 0 'Neill v Moran Index No. J 7-606171 Pag:e 2 involved in the accident. The accident allegedly occurred when a vehickoperated by defendant Meaghan Moran (''Moran") and owned by defendant Scott Moran made a left turn and collided with the vehicle operated and owned by defendant Jacklyn Y ming ("Young';). The force. of the impact alleged! y propelled Young'svl.!hicle into the opposing lane of travel, where it collided with a vehicle operated andowned by plaintiff · Young now moves for surilrnary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims asserted againsther, arguing that she is not negligent and thatthere is no triable issue of fact as to her liability for the accident. ln support of her motion, Young submits, inter alia, copies ofthe pleadings and the parties' deposition testimony. Plaintiff opposes the motion with ail affirmation from his attorney, inter alit.1, arguing that a triable issue exists as to whether Young was negligent in causing the accident. Athis deposition, plaintifftestified that prior to the accident he was traveling southbound on Route 111 for approximately one half mile on his way to Taco Bell. Plaintiff described Route 111 as having one lane in either direction with yellow double lines and no traffic control devices; He further stated that East Walnut Street was governed by a stop sign at the intersection with Route 111. Plain.tiff testified thatas he approached the intersection with East Walnut Street, he. observed Young's headlights iUurninatingfrnmthe opposite lane of travel on Route 111., and that he observed Moran's vehicle headlights illuminating from the intersection of East Walnut StteeL He testified that a split second later, he applied his brakes, turned the steering wheel to the right and that Young's vehicle struck the front driver's side ofhis vehicle. Plaintiff testified that apprnximately two seconds: later, Moran's vehicle struck the front end of his vehicle. He testified that he did not observe Moran's vehicle proceed through the stop sign without stopping at the intersection with Route 111 prior to the accident. Plaintiff testified that the first impact was heavy, and was followed by a second heavy impact that caused his vehicle to ''bounce around" and move to the southbound side lane of travel on Route 11 L At her deposition, Moran testified that on the day of the accident she was: ttavelingwestboun.d oil East Walnui Street and came to a complete stop at.a stop. sign at the intersection with Route 111. Moran testified that Route 111 had one lane of travel in either direction and no traffic control devices. Moran testified that she was stopped forapproximateiy three to four seconds, and looked to the left and the right for any oncoming vehicles. Moran testified that as she proceeded to make a left tuth onto Route 111 the front end of Young's vehicle struck the middle ofthe driver's side of her vehicle, thatthe impact caused her vehicle to spin and move forward, and that after the collision her vehicle came to rest oil the northwest corner of Walnut Street and Route 111, facing in the. opposite direction. She testified that the ac;cident happened in the northbound lane of Rqute 11 l, thather view was unobstructed, and that she did not .observe Young's. vehicle prior to the accident. Moran testified that she did not observe any impact between plaintiffs vehicle and Y pung 's vehicle. and that there was no sec:ond impact to her vehicle. Moran testified that she did not hear ~ny horns or brakes screeching prior to the acc.ident. At her deposition, Young testified. that just prior tq her ac.cident she was traveling north boµnd on Route 111 at approximately 35 miles per hour ru1d observed Moran's vehicle approximately one to two feet away• from. the stop sign a:t the intersection with East. Walnut Street, Y 011ng described Roqte 111. as running north and south.with one lane ortravel i.n either direction and no trat'fic control devices. She [* 2] ..... , ..,.- ............ ______________________ 2 of 4 -------·-··---···· FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2019 11:17 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 INDEX NO. 606171/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2019 O'Neill v Moran Index No. 17""606171 Page 3 testified that approximately three to four seconds later, she observed Moran's vehicle enter the intersection with Route 111 without stoppi11g at the stop sign, and thatthe front end of her vehicle struck the driver's side of Moran"s vehicle. Young testified that she applied her brakes, turnedher steering wheel to the right,. and that her vehicle skidded but was unable to avoid the impact She testified that the impact caused her vehicle to be pushed onto the southbound lane of Route 111, facing plaintiffs oncoming vehicle. According to Young, approximately one to two seconds later; the front end of plaintiffs vehicle struck the front end ofher vehicle and that the impact caused her air bags to deploy; She farther testified that she did not observe or hear any impact between plaintiffs vehicle and Moran vehicle's on the·day ofthe accident. . . . It is Well-settled that a party rhovingfor summary judgment must make aprimafacie showing of entitlement to judgment as matter of law,· offering sufficient evidence in admissible forn1 to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (.4./varez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [ 1980]). The failure to make such a prima facie case showing requires the denial ofthe motion regardless of the sufficiency ofthe opposing papers {Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr;, 64 NY2d 851, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]). However, upon the movant establishing aprimtijacie showing of entitlement to a summary judgment, the burden then shifts to the opponent to offer evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish a material issue of fact requiring atrial of the action (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., suprq;Zuckermawv City o/New York, supra). Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1142 (a.) requires a driver ofa motor vehicle approaching a stop signto stop and yield the right of way to any vehicle that has entered the intersection or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard {see Willis v Finks, 7 AD3d 519, 775 NYS2d 587 [2dDept2004]; SzcotkavAdler,291 AD2d 444; 737NYS2d.121 [2dDept2002]). Vehicle andTrafficLaw § 1172 requires an operator of any vehicle approaching a stop sign to stop at a clearly marked stop line or before entering the crosswalk so that he or she has a clear view of oncoming traffic before entering the intersection (see Natoli v Peabody, 27 NY2d 981, 318 NYS2d 741 [1970]; Ahr v Karolewski, 32 AD3d 805, 821 NYS2d236 [2d Dept 2006]). A driver with a tight of way is entitled to anticipate that the other driver will obey the traffic lawsrequiring him or herto yield (see Laino vLucchese; 35 AD3d 672, 827 NYS2d 249 [2d Dept2006]; Bo1tgiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 795 NYS2d 354 [2d Dept2005]). Here, Young's. submissions are sufficient to estal:>lish aprimafacie cas¢ ofentitleinerit to summary judgment. Young demonstrated that her vehicle. was .struck by Moran's vehicle irt. the intersection after Moran failed to yield the right of way to .her approaching vehicle. and that she was not comparatively at fault in th,e happening of the accident (E11riq uez Joseph; 169 AD 3d 1008 1 94 NYS3d 599 [2d Dept 2019];. Bongiavi v Hoffman; supra; Botero v Erraez~ 289 AD2d274, 734 NYS2d 565 [2d Dept 2001]). She testified thatshe had to immediately take evasive action to,avoid being struck by Moran's vehicle before the co Uisiori (see Bonillti v Gutierrez; 81 AD3d 5 81, 915 NYS2d 634 [2d Dept 2011]): A ddvet whh the tightof' way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle that has failed to. yield. v [* 3] ---····--------···-········································ 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 606171/2017 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2019 11:17 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2019 O'Neill v Moran Index No. 17-606171 Page4 is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision ( Yelder v Walters, 64 AD3d 762; 883 NYS2d 290 [2dDept 2009]). Here, the testimony shows Moran failed to see what she shouldhaveseen throughthe properuse ofher senses(Rumanov v Greenblatt, 251 AD2d 566, 673 NYS2d 614 [2dDept 1998]; Nunziata v Bircltell, 238 AD2d 555, 656 NYS2d 383 [2d Dept 1997]). In opposition, plaintifffailedtoraisea triable issue of fact as to.whether Yo1mgwas comparatively atfault in causing the accident. Inasmuch as Young had the right of way. she wasentitled to anticipate that Moran would obey the traffic laws requiringherto yield and allow Young's vehicle to pass prior to making a left turn . .Accordingly, the motion is granted. Dated: July '.29, 2019 Hon~ Acting Justice.Supreme Court FINAL DISPOSITION X NON~FlNAL DISPOSITION 4 of 4 --··-·········-------··---------------------------[* 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.