Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Bonilla v. Calabria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 25, 2011

80 A.D.3d 720; 915 N.Y.S.2d 615

Cases that cite this one

35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Alexander v. Hub Truck Rental Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2020)
Vazquez v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Boodlall v. Herrera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Nesbitt v. Gallant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Beres v. Terranera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Estate of Cook v. Gomez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Twizer v. Lavi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Ricciardi v. Nelson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Taylor v. Brat Auto Sales, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Lopez v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Jones v. Pinto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Bullock v. Calabretta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Gorenkoff v. Nagar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Mohr v. Carlson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Jimenez v. Batista (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Cicalese v. Burier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Fried v. Misser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Fried v. Misser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kenda v. Dunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kenda v. Dunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Sperling v. Akesson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Sperling v. Akesson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ayala v. Jasons Towing, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 1, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128, 1143; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593 [2004]). A driver who has the right-of-way, however, also has a duty to keep a proper lookout to avoid colliding with other vehicles (see Demant v Rochevet, 43 AD3d 981 [2007]; Pena v Santana, 5 AD3d 649, 650 [2004]). “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” (Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427 [2005]; see Tapia v Royal Tours Serv., Inc., 67 AD3d 894 [2009]).

Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of the parties, who presented conflicting testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligent operation of his vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see generally Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872 [2010]; Malak v Wynder, 56 AD3d 622 [2008]; Gordon v Honig, 40 AD3d 925 [2007]). In light of the plaintiffs failure to meet his prima facie burden, we *721need not consider the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendants’ remaining contention. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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