Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Nolan v. Mizrahi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 8, 2004

12 A.D.3d 430; 783 N.Y.S.2d 849; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Jones v. Castro-Tinco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Goemans v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Gergis v. Miccio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Hull v. Spagnoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Mateiasevici v. Daccordo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Laino v. Lucchese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
McNamara v. Fishkowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Arbizu v. REM Transportation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 10, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident during which the front of her vehicle came into contact with the passenger side of the defendant’s vehicle at an intersection. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the *431complaint. In support of his motion, the defendant established a prima face entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]; Morgan v Hachmann, 9 AD3d 400 [2004]; Meliarenne v Prisco, 9 AD3d 353 [2004]; Willis v Fink, 7 AD3d 519 [2004]; Meretskaya v Logozzo, 2 AD3d 599 [2003]; Yusupov v Lugo, 305 AD2d 496 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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