Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Parisi v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 20, 2001

280 A.D.2d 589; 720 N.Y.S.2d 806

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Pena v. Castillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
REDD, MARIA v. JUARBE, CHRISTINE V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Singh v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Sirot v. Troiano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Cox v. Weil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Corwin v. Heart Share Human Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Nasirudin v. Harry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Grange v. Jacobs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Klein v. Byalik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Wilkins v. Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Gillinder v. Hemmes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated *590April 26, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The evidence establishes that the plaintiff Concetta R Parisi was negligent as a matter of law when she failed to yield the right-of-way to the defendant (see, Cenovski v Lee, 266 AD2d 424). The defendant, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that Ms. Parisi would obey traffic laws which required her to yield (see, Cenovski v Lee, supra). The plaintiffs’ mere speculation that the defendant may have failed to act properly is insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Goff v Goudreau, 222 AD2d 650). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.