Luciano-Mahoney v. Rossman
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Legrand v. USC-NYCON, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Jiminez v. Rosi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Gardiner v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Gardiner v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Samnath v. Lifespire Servs., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Grant v. Joyce (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Grant v. Joyce (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
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
| Luciano-Mahoney v Rossman |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 01202 |
| Decided on February 25, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: February 25, 2021
Before: Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Singh, Mendez, JJ.
Index No. 151133/18 Appeal No. 13207 Case No. 2020-03224
v
Larry Rossman et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Restivo & Murphy LLP, Garden City (Todd Restivo of counsel), for appellant.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Matthew Zryb of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered December 31, 2019, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The accident giving rise to plaintiff's claim involved an intersection collision between plaintiff's vehicle, which was traveling on a street that was not regulated by a traffic control device, and defendants' vehicle, whose approach into the intersection was regulated by a stop sign. The court properly denied plaintiff's motion because the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether defendant Rossman stopped at the stop sign, whether Rossman was already within the intersection when plaintiff's vehicle approached, and whether plaintiff should have seen Rossman's vehicle as she was approaching the intersection (see Raposo v Robinson, 106 AD3d 593 [1st Dept 2013]; Nevarez v S.R.M. Mgt. Corp., 58 AD3d 295 [1st Dept 2008]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: February 25, 2021
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.