Altieri v Hyl
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle negligence and summary judgment in a passenger personal injury action arising from a taxi-truck collision.
The trial court denied the summary judgment motion by Con Ed. and Keith Hyl.
The Appellate Division reversed that order, granted summary judgment to Con Ed. and Hyl, and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against them.
The moving defendants showed that the taxi driver, Nasreldin Ghoniem, violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128(a) [requires a driver to remain within a lane until movement can be made safely], 1160(d) [requires turns to be made only from a lane lawfully designated for that turn], and 1163(a)-(b) [requires turns or lane changes to be made only when they can be done with reasonable safety and with proper signaling] by attempting a left turn from a straight-travel lane, failing to yield and merge safely, and cutting off the Con Ed. truck in the left-turn lane. The court found Ghoniem's maneuver was the sole proximate cause of the collision, there was no evidence Hyl failed to see what was there to be seen, and plaintiff's contrary theory was unpreserved and unsupported by the record.
Background
Plaintiff Juan Altieri was riding as a passenger in a taxicab driven by defendant Nasreldin Ghoniem and owned by defendant 4S Cab Corp. The taxi collided with a box truck driven by defendant Keith Hyl and owned by Hyl's employer, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. According to the evidence credited by the Appellate Division, the taxi attempted to make a left turn from the middle lane, which was designated for straight travel, and moved into the path of the Con Ed. truck, which was already in the left-turn lane.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion by Con Ed. and Hyl for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against them.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, granted the motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims as against Con Ed. and Hyl. The court held that defendants made a prima facie showing that Ghoniem's illegal and unsafe turning maneuver was the sole proximate cause of the crash. It also held that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because his claim that the taxi had safely entered the left lane and stopped for one or two seconds before impact was both unpreserved and unsupported by the testimony. The fact that the Con Ed. vehicle struck part of the rear of the taxicab did not bar dismissal because the evidence showed Hyl had only seconds to react.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that summary judgment is appropriate in a vehicle collision case when the undisputed proof shows one driver violated lane-use and turning rules and thereby created the accident. It also shows that a rear or partial rear impact does not by itself establish negligence against the striking driver when the other vehicle suddenly cuts into the lane, and that unsupported appellate theories will not defeat summary judgment.
Where a driver makes an improper left turn from a straight-only lane and cuts off a vehicle already in the turning lane, that driver's conduct can be deemed the sole proximate cause of the collision, entitling the other driver and owner to summary judgment even in a passenger injury case.