Ficalora v Almeida
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle negligence; intersection collision; right-of-way and summary judgment under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) [driver entering an intersection controlled by a stop sign must yield the right-of-way to any vehicle already in the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard].
The Supreme Court, Kings County granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Defendants-Respondents Chaynoga and Uzabeaga.
The grant of summary judgment in favor of Chaynoga and Uzabeaga.
There can be more than one proximate cause. Although the non-stop-sign driver had the right-of-way, he still owed a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with a vehicle already in the intersection. The deposition testimony (host vehicle halfway through the intersection, impact to its right rear) failed to establish prima facie that Chaynoga was free from fault.
Background
Plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by Christopher Almeida, was injured in a collision at a four-way intersection in Richmond County. Almeida’s vehicle faced a stop sign; the vehicle driven by Anatoliy Chaynoga (owned by Veronica Uzabeaga) did not have a traffic control device. Almeida testified he stopped, looked, proceeded slowly, and was more than halfway through the intersection when his vehicle’s right rear was struck by the front of Chaynoga’s vehicle. Chaynoga testified he first saw the host vehicle when half of it was in front of him and struck the area between the back door and rear fender.
Lower Court Decision
By order dated January 31, 2024, the Supreme Court, Kings County granted that branch of the motion by Chaynoga and Uzabeaga for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, concluding Almeida’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause.
Appellate Division Reversal
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs; the branch of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Chaynoga and Uzabeaga is denied. The court held they failed to make a prima facie showing that Chaynoga was not at fault, given testimony indicating the host vehicle was already in the intersection. Because movants did not meet their initial burden, denial follows without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that multiple proximate causes can exist in intersection collisions and that a right-of-way driver still has a duty of reasonable care to avoid vehicles already in the intersection. On summary judgment, a defendant must establish prima facie freedom from fault; otherwise, the motion is denied regardless of the opponent’s papers.
Even a right-of-way driver can share fault where evidence suggests the other vehicle was already in the intersection; failure to establish prima facie freedom from fault defeats summary judgment.