Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law

New York Appellate Division Reports

Unpublished

LAINO v. LUCCHESE, 2005-11378 (2nd Dept 12-19-2006) 2006 NY
Slip Op 09566 Anthony D. Laino, respondent, v. Lauren A.
Lucchese, et al., appellants. 2005-11378. Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second
Department. Decided on December 19, 2006.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the
issuing court.] In an action to recover damages for personal
injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the
Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated
September 29, 2005, which granted the plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern, N.Y. (William S.
Badura of counsel), for appellants.

Worby Groner Edelman, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael L.
Taub of counsel), for respondent.

HOWARD MILLER, J.P., ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, STEVEN W. FISHER,
MARK C. DILLON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

A driver who fails to yield the right of way after stopping
at a stop sign controlling traffic is in violation of
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) and is negligent
as a matter of law (see Odumbo v Perera, 27 AD3d 709;
Friedberg v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 22 AD3d 522, 523;
McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721, 722; Nolan v Mizrahi, 12
AD3d 430; Ishak v Guzman, 12 AD3d 409; Meretskaya v
Logozzo, 2 AD3d 599). A driver is required to see what is
there to be seen (see Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687;
Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356), and a driver who has the
right of way is entitled to anticipate that the other
motorist will obey the traffic law requiring him or her to
yield (see Platt v Wolman, 29 AD3d 663; Dileo v Barreca, 16
AD3d 366, 367-368; Morgan v Hachmann, 9 AD3d 400).

The plaintiff established, prima facie, his entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the
defendant driver, who was faced with a stop sign at a ?T?
intersection, negligently entered the intersection without
yielding the right of way, and that this was the sole
proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law
§ 1142[a]). In opposition, the defendants failed to
submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact
(see Bongiovi v Hoffman, supra; Breslin v Rudden, 291 AD2d
471, 472).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

MILLER, J.P., SPOLZINO, FISHER and DILLON, JJ., concur.