Turner v. Butler

Restivo & Murphy LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Todd A. Restivo of counsel), for appellant.

Roe & Associates, Garden City, N.Y. (Patrick B. McKeown of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered March 19, 2015, which denied those branches of his motion which were for summary

judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' fourth and twelfth affirmative defenses.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' fourth and twelfth affirmative defenses are granted.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' fourth and twelfth affirmative defenses. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated that the vehicle operated by the defendant Michael G. Butler and owned by the defendant Jean L. Butler struck the vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff in an intersection. The evidence further demonstrated that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the defendant driver's failure to stop at a red traffic signal and procession through the intersection, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(2) (see Monteleone v. Jung Pyo Hong, 79 A.D.3d 988, 913 N.Y.S.2d 755 ; Ramos v. Triboro Coach Corp., 31 A.D.3d 625, 819 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; Borges v. Zukowski, 22 A.D.3d 439, 801 N.Y.S.2d 544 ; Casanova v. New York City Tr. Auth., 279 A.D.2d 495, 719 N.Y.S.2d 125 ). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Deleg v. Vinci, 82 A.D.3d 1146, 919 N.Y.S.2d 396 ; Cavitch v. Mateo, 58 A.D.3d 592, 871 N.Y.S.2d 372 ).

Furthermore, contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff's motion was not premature since the defendants failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see Kimyagarov v. Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 A.D.3d 736, 846 N.Y.S.2d 309 ). The defendants' professed need to conduct discovery did not warrant denial of the motion since they already had personal knowledge of the relevant facts (see Abramov v. Miral Corp., 24 A.D.3d 397, 398, 805 N.Y.S.2d 119 ). “The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” (Lopez v. WS Distrib., Inc., 34 A.D.3d 759, 760, 825 N.Y.S.2d 516 ; see Monteleone v. Jung Pyo Hong, 79 A.D.3d 988, 913 N.Y.S.2d 755 ; Corwin v. Heart Share Human Servs. of N.Y., 66 A.D.3d 814, 887 N.Y.S.2d 246 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' fourth and twelfth affirmative defenses.