Goodluck v Azeez
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle negligence arising from a left-turn collision; application of Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1141 [requires a left-turning driver to yield the right-of-way to oncoming vehicles within or so close to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard] and summary judgment standards.
The Supreme Court, Kings County granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against Azeez and denied Azeez's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against him.
The Appellate Division reversed, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against Azeez and granting Azeez summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against him.
Azeez established prima facie that he had the right-of-way, that Osborn violated VTL § 1141 [left-turning driver must yield], constituting negligence per se, and that he had only seconds to react, negating comparative negligence. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Background
On June 24, 2021, a vehicle driven by Lorraine Osborn, in which plaintiff Candice Goodluck was a passenger, collided with a vehicle driven by Lateez Azeez. The front of Osborn's car struck the driver's side door of Azeez's car during the collision. Plaintiff sued for personal injuries. Azeez moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims; plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability against Azeez. Deposition transcripts of Azeez, Osborn, and plaintiff indicated Azeez had the right-of-way and Osborn, turning left, failed to yield.
Lower Court Decision
By order dated December 13, 2023 (Supreme Court, Kings County, Levine, J.), the court denied Azeez's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability against Azeez.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that Azeez was free from fault as a matter of law because Osborn's failure to yield during a left turn violated VTL § 1141 [left-turning driver must yield to oncoming traffic], constituting negligence per se and the sole proximate cause of the collision. As the oncoming driver with the right-of-way and only seconds to react, Azeez was entitled to assume compliance by Osborn and was not comparatively negligent. The court reversed, granted Azeez summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against him, and denied plaintiff's motion on liability.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a left-turning driver who violates VTL § 1141 [left-turning driver must yield to oncoming traffic] is negligent per se and can be deemed the sole proximate cause where the oncoming driver with the right-of-way has only seconds to react. In such circumstances, summary judgment for the non-turning driver is appropriate and the turning driver's failure to yield defeats the plaintiff's liability motion.
An oncoming driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a left-turning vehicle’s failure to yield is not comparatively negligent; a VTL § 1141 violation by the turning driver can warrant summary judgment dismissing claims against the oncoming driver.