From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gravina v. Wakschal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1998
255 A.D.2d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 2, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as dismissed the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against Joan B. Gravina is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved by that part of the order; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs Joan B. Gravina (hereinafter Gravina) and her daughter, Jennifer Gravina (hereinafter Jennifer), allegedly were injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 26, 1986, at the intersection of Seaview Avenue and Magnolia Avenue on Staten Island. At the time, Jennifer was a passenger in the car being operated by Gravina when that car came into contact with a vehicle being operated by the defendant Stephen J. Wakschal, and owned by the defendant General Electric Credit Auto Lease, Inc. (hereinafter GE Credit), when Wakschal's vehicle went through a stop sign. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment against Wakschal and GE Credit. On appeal, Wakschal and GE Credit argue that a triable issue of fact exists because Gravina admitted at her examination before trial that she did not see the Wakschal car until the accident.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs on their motions established that Gravina had the right of way and that Wakschal failed to stop at the stop sign facing him. This was sufficient to make out a prima facie case that the accident resulted solely from Wakschal's negligence (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]; Ponticello v. Wilhelm, 249 A.D.2d 459). In opposition to the motions, the appellants relied upon Gravina's deposition testimony to the effect that she did not see Wakschal's vehicle until the contact. However, that evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact and was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Maxwell v. Land-Saunders, 233 A.D.2d 303).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gravina v. Wakschal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1998
255 A.D.2d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Gravina v. Wakschal

Case Details

Full title:JOAN B. GRAVINA et al., Respondents, v. STEPHEN J. WAKSCHAL et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 2, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 420

Citing Cases

Willis v. Fink

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a…

Vazquez v. New York City Transit Auth.

lson (hereinafter collectively the appellants) demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a…