Aiello v. City of New York

Aug 31, 2006
Versions:32 A.D.3d 361
820 N.Y.S.2d 579
Henry v. State, 4 NY3d 566, 579 [2005] [emphasis added]).

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered on or about May 20, 2005, after a jury trial, which, to the extent apрealed from, found the Lando defendants liable to plaintiff for 80% of a sum to be determined after a separate trial on damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, said portion of the judgment vacated and the complaint dismissed as against defendants-appellants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was injured in a collision with the Lando vehicle while riding his bicycle across an exit/entrance ramp between Pelham Pаrkway and the Hutchinson River Parkway. Plaintiff, proceeding along a bicycle path that intersected the ramp, had a stop sign controlling his crossing the ramp, but there was no sign or signal controlling vehicles proceeding along thе ramp. Vegetation lining the sides of the ramp and a bend in its roadway obstructed the view of both cyclists and drivers.

The trial court erred in denying the Landos’ CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff‘s evidence. Upon the evidence presentеd, there was no rational basis for the jury to find in favor of plaintiff (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). Plaintiff not only failed to establish a prima facie case of liability against the Landos, but the evidence ‍​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍clearly establishes that the Lando vehicle had thе right of way and that, in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, plaintiff negligently proceeded across the roadway despite the presence of a stop sign controlling his crossing. Specifically, a bicyclist on a roadway is “subject to all оf the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231), “every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop . . . or in the event there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection and the right to proceed shall be subject to the provisions of section eleven hundred forty-two” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]), аnd “every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop as required by section eleven hundred seventy-two and after having stopped shall yield the right of way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on said highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]).

Plaintiff admitted that he entered the roadway despite being unаble to see past the bend in the road and that he chose not to walk his bike across the roadway, even though walking across might have allowed him to avoid an oncoming car. Defendant driver, as the vehicle operator with the right of way, was entitled to assume that plaintiff would obey the traffic laws requiring that he yield the right of way, and had no duty to watch for and avoid plaintiff when he failed to do so (Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157, 159-160 [1998]; see also Jordan v City of New York, 12 AD3d 326 [2004]). Thus, defendant was not negligent, and the Lando defendants’ primа facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law was demonstrated (see Jenkins v Alexander, 9 AD3d 286 [2004]; Murchison v Incognoli, 5 AD3d 271 [2004]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider defendants-appellants’ remaining contentions. Were we to do ‍​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍so, we would find them meritorious. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

MARLOW, J.P.

WILLIAMS, GONZALEZ, SWEENY AND CATTERSON, JJ.

ethics? Or should it be ‘Concur—’ text as a signature line? The prompt asks for signature blocks to preserve typed name and title. The ‘Concur’ line contains names of judges. I‘ll include the names in a signature-style block based on the provided names. However, standard formatting for these reports often lists the judges as part of the Concur section. I will stick to the text verbatim as requested. The document ends with the Concur line. The second case begins after. I will only format the Aiello case. One small note: the first page starts with the end of a previous case. I will skip the partial content at the top of page 361 as per instructions (“Skip partial сontent from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document“). Wait, the instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Page 361 starts with: “dence sufficient to prove ‘a serious injury causally related to...” This is the end of the previous case. Then comes the case Aiello v. City of New York. Then page 363 starts another case: “In the Matter of Soho Alliance...“. So I only process Aiello. Re-checking metadata: Short Name: Aiello v. City of New York Docket: (Not provided in caption, but the citation 820 NYS2d 579 is there) Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department) Date: 2006-05-30 (derived from the reported citation year and standard practice, though page doesn‘t explicitly state the month/day, usually legal databases or full reporters have it. The screenshot shows “May 30, 2006” is not there, but “May 20, 2005” is the trial court entry date. I‘ll use 2006 if the date isn‘t visible, but I should check the screenshot carefully. The date is not on the page. I will use the year 2006 аs it‘s the volume year and usually these are published shortly after. Wait, I should not hallucinate. The prompt says “preserve formatting exactly... Omit elements without data“. I will omit date if not found. However, typically for these NY reports, I should lоok for a term date. Since it‘s not on the page, I will omit the specific date or use the year from the cite.) Correction: The citation is [820 NYS2d 579]. Short name: Aiello v. City of New York. One more check on the text for Aiello: Starts on 361. Cоntinues on 362. Ends on 363. I‘ll proceed with the Aiello case only. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered on or about May 20, 2005, after a jury trial, which, to the extent appealed from, found the Lando defendants liable to plaintiff for 80% of a sum to be determined after a separate trial on damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, withоut costs, said portion of the judgment vacated and the complaint dismissed as against defendants-appellants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was injured in a collision with the Lando vehicle while riding his bicycle across an exit/entrance ramp between Pelham Parkway and the Hutchinson River Parkway. Plaintiff, proceeding along a bicycle path that intersected the ramp, had a stop sign controlling his crossing the ramp, but there was no sign or signal controlling vehicles proceеding along the ramp. Vegetation lining the sides of the ramp and a bend in its roadway obstructed the view of both cyclists and drivers.

The trial court erred in denying the Landos’ CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff‘s evidence. Upon the evidence ‍​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍рresented, there was no rational basis for the jury to find in favor of plaintiff (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). Plaintiff not only failed to establish a prima facie case of liability against the Landos, but the evidence clearly establishes that the Lando vehicle had the right of way and that, in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, plaintiff negligently proceeded across the roadway despite the presence of a stop sign controlling his crossing. Specifically, a bicyclist on a roadway is “subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231), “every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop ... or in the event there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection and the right to proceed shall be subject to the provisions of section eleven hundrеd forty-two” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]), and “every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop as required by section eleven hundred seventy-two and after having stopped shall yield the right of way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on said highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]).

Plaintiff admitted that he entered the roadway despite being unable to see past the bend in the road and that he chose not to walk his bike across the roadway, even though walking across might have allowed him to avoid an oncoming car. Defendant driver, as the vehicle оperator with the right of way, was entitled to assume that plaintiff would obey the traffic laws requiring that he yield the right of way, and had no duty to watch for and avoid plaintiff when he failed to do so (Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157, 159-160 [1998]; see also Jordan v City of New York, 12 AD3d 326 [2004]). Thus, defendant was not negligent, and the Lando defendants’ prima facie ‍​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍entitlement to judgment as a matter of law was demonstrated (see Jenkins v Alexander, 9 AD3d 286 [2004]; Murchison v Incognoli, 5 AD3d 271 [2004]). In view of the foregoing, we need not consider defendants-appellants’ remaining contentions. Were we to do so, we would find them meritоrious. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

``` Wait, re-checking the page 363 transition. “In view of...” is at the top of 363. The Concur line lists the judges. Final check on HTML structure: - No code fences. - Verbatim text. - Case info details. - midрage-ps markers. - Case citations wrapped. - Law citations wrapped. - Straight quotes. - No
. One detail: in the caption on page 361, it says “JOSEPH AIELLO, Respondent, v CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and ANTHONY LANDO et al., Appellants.” I will use the Bluebook short name: `Aiello v. City of New York`. The citations for NY Appellate Division are often `AD2d` or `AD3d`. I will use `N.Y. App. Div.` as court for these. For `midpage-law` jurisdiction, NY state laws use `NY`. For `midpage-case` court: AD2d/AD3d cases are `N.Y. App. Div.`. NY2d cases аre `N.Y.`. The date for Aiello is not on the page. I‘ll omit it from Case Info and midpage-case tag for the current case. Wait, if I‘m creating the record for the opinion, I should include whatever is provided. The cite has [820 NYS2d 579]. Usually, the year is in the reporter cite. I‘ll use `date=“2006“` since it‘s in the 800s of NYS2d which is 2006. Actually, the instruction says: “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. If a date is not in the text, I‘ll omit it. But the text does say “May 20, 2005” for the judgment date. This is nоt the opinion date. I‘ll leave the date attribute out of the details if I don‘t see a specific “Decided on” date. Let‘s do this. Final check on the OCR text: “the [subject] accident” -> `the [subject] accident` “Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579 [2005]” -> This is pаrt of the previous case‘s text. I‘ll ignore it. Aiello text starts with the black box then “Judgment, Supreme Court...“. Actually, there is a caption before the box: “Joseph Aiello, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Anthony Lando et al., Appellants. [820 NYS2d 579]—” I will include this in the details. Wait, I should check if the “Judgment, Supreme Court...” is the opinion. Yes, in these memo decisions, that is the “Opinion Body“. One detail: the OCR shows a “Concur—Andrias, J.P...” line at the end of the *previous* case. Then Aiello stаrts. Aiello ends with “Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.” on page 363. I‘ll include the Aiello concur line as a signature block or at least at the end of the text. The prompt says “preserve typed name and title” in a signature block. ```html

MARLOW, J.P.

WILLIAMS, GONZALEZ, SWEENY AND CATTERSON, JJ.

``` Actually, I‘ll just keep it as a paragraph at the end if it‘s “Concur—...“. Corrected metadata: - court=“N.Y. App. Div.” (as it‘s published in the Appellate Division reports). - citation=“820 NYS2d 579” ```html ``` Ready.