Lescenski v. Williams
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- LISKIEWICZ, CARRIE v. HAMEISTER, MARY E. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Gomez v. Buczynski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Godwin v. Mancuso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Gilkerson v. Buck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- ROLLS, RICHARD E. v. STATE OF NEW YORK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- MOORE, SHELLY F. v. CURTISS, NANCY A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- ROSE, SUSAN E. v. LEBERTH, KIM A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Rolls v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Rolls v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- GEORGE, SHARI v. CERAT, GLENN P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- JOHNSON, ULYSSES v. TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Johnson v. Time Warner Entertainment (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Johnson v. Time Warner Entertainment (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- George v. Cerat (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- George v. Cerat (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
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
Plaintiff commenced this action, individually and as fiduciary of the estate of Robert A. Smith (decedent), seeking damages for the wrongful death of decedent as the result of an accident in a four-way intersection controlled by a traffic light. That accident occurred when the vehicle driven by decedent’s wife and in which decedent was a passenger collided with the vehicle driven by defendant. We reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is well settled that a driver “who has the right[-]of[-]way is entitled to anticipate that [the drivers of] other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield” (Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258, 260 [1997]; see Rogers v Edelman, 79 AD3d 1803 [2010]; Wallace v Kuhn, 23 AD3d 1042,1043 [2005]).
In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant was negligent based on his speed or failure to keep a proper lookout (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, “[t]he speculative affidavit of [her] expert containing alternative explanations concerning the manner in which the accident occurred is insufficient to defeat the motion” (Van Ostberg v Crane, 273 AD2d 895, 896 [2000]; see Wasson v Szafarski, 6 AD3d 1182 [2004]). Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.