On July 07, 2017 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ann Supernault,
and
Dashti Abdullah,
Pamela O'Neill,
Zugaib Taxi & Dispatch Inc.,
for Torts - Motor Vehicle
in the District Court of Onondaga County.
Preview
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2018 03:54 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF2836
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
ANN SUPERNAULT
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
-against-
PAMELA O'NEILL, ZUGAIB TAXI & DISPATCH AND Index No.: 2017EF2836
DASHTI ABDULLAH
Defendant(s)
TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT EXISTS AS TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE
DEFENDANT TAXI CAB
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. To grant such a motion itmust be clear
that no triable issues of fact exist. There must be no doubt. Brege v. Breced, 41 A.D. 3d
(4th
1218 Dept. 2007).
It iswell settled that even when an operator of a motor vehicle enters into an
intersection with a green light, the driver must use reasonable care in doing so. Failure to use
reasoñable care can result in negligence of the driver. Strasburg v. Campj1ell, 28 A.D. 3d 1131
(4th (4th
Dept. 2006); Brege v Brege, et al, 41 A.D. 3d 1218 Dept. 2007); Hartsuff v. Michael,
(2nd
139 A.D. 3d Dept. 2016). A driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter into an intersection.
2nd (3rd
See_; Greco v. Boyce, 262 A.D. at 735 Dept. 1999). The driver must use ordinary care
3rd (4th
under the circumstances. Matthew v. Smallridge, 59 A.D. 1077, Dept. 2009). There can
(4th
be more than one proximate cause, Strasburg v Campbell, 28 A.D. 3d 1131 Dept. 2006).
In the case at bar, defendant Abdullah by his own account entered into the intersection
without seeing what was there to be seen. He testified that prior to the collision he did not see
1 of 3
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2018 03:54 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF2836
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2018
the other vehicle and took no evasive actions to prevent the accident. His vehicle made contact
with the other vehicle, not the other way around. It isclear the other vehicle was there to be
seen, yet for whatever reason, defendant Abdullah did not see it. Defendant must answer to the
trier of fact for his inactions. .
This leads to Plaintiff's second argument that the record reflects that one could
reasonable surmise based upon the deposition testimony that the defendant failed to see the other
vehicle because of his use of a cellular device. Plaintiff testified that defendant AbdulleA was
using the device in the course of the cab ride prior to the accident. This is significant with
defeñdant Abdullah's admission and testimony that at time he uses his cell phone for directions,
although he denied using itat the time of the accident. What is clear is that something whether is
was inattention or his cell phone prevented defendant Abdullah from what was there to be
seeing
seen.
If a driver is distracted by the use of a cell phone even if obeying the traffic laws, a
question of fact exists as to whether the accident could have been avoided. See: Carsupil v.
(1st
Barda, 88 A.D. 3d 604 Dept 20111); Quinones v Community Action Commission to Help the
(3rd
Economy Inc. 46 A.D. 3d 1326 Dept 2007).
defendants'
Wherefore, as a result of the foregoing the motion should be denied.
Dated: Syracuse, NY
December 11, 2018
Yours, etc.,
Anthony R. Mattoccia
STANLEY LAw OFFICES
Attorneys for Plaintiff(s)
2 of 3
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2018 03:54 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF2836
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2018
215 Burnet Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13203
Telephone No.: (315)474-3742
File Number: 1503559
3 of 3
Document Filed Date
December 11, 2018
Case Filing Date
July 07, 2017
Category
Torts - Motor Vehicle
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2018 03:54 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF2836 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONONDAGA ANN SUPERNAULT Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF LAW -against- PAMELA O'NEILL, ZUGAIB TAXI & DISPATCH AND Index No.: 2017EF2836 DASHTI ABDULLAH Defendant(s) TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT EXISTS AS TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT TAXI CAB Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. To grant such a motion itmust be clear that no triable issues of fact exist. There must be no doubt. Brege v. Breced, 41 A.D. 3d (4th 1218 Dept. 2007). It iswell settled that even when an operator of a motor vehicle enters into an intersection with a green light, the driver must use reasonable care in doing so. Failure to use reasoñable care can result in negligence of the driver. Strasburg v. Campj1ell, 28 A.D. 3d 1131 (4th (4th Dept. 2006); Brege v Brege, et al, 41 A.D. 3d 1218 Dept. 2007); Hartsuff v. Michael, (2nd 139 A.D. 3d Dept. 2016). A driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter into an intersection. 2nd (3rd See_; Greco v. Boyce, 262 A.D. at 735 Dept. 1999). The driver must use ordinary care 3rd (4th under the circumstances. Matthew v. Smallridge, 59 A.D. 1077, Dept. 2009). There can (4th be more than one proximate cause, Strasburg v Campbell, 28 A.D. 3d 1131 Dept. 2006). In the case at bar, defendant Abdullah by his own account entered into the intersection without seeing what was there to be seen. He testified that prior to the collision he did not see 1 of 3 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2018 03:54 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF2836 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2018 the other vehicle and took no evasive actions to prevent the accident. His vehicle made contact with the other vehicle, not the other way around. It isclear the other vehicle was there to be seen, yet for whatever reason, defendant Abdullah did not see it. Defendant must answer to the trier of fact for his inactions. . This leads to Plaintiff's second argument that the record reflects that one could reasonable surmise based upon the deposition testimony that the defendant failed to see the other vehicle because of his use of a cellular device. Plaintiff testified that defendant AbdulleA was using the device in the course of the cab ride prior to the accident. This is significant with defeñdant Abdullah's admission and testimony that at time he uses his cell phone for directions, although he denied using itat the time of the accident. What is clear is that something whether is was inattention or his cell phone prevented defendant Abdullah from what was there to be seeing seen. If a driver is distracted by the use of a cell phone even if obeying the traffic laws, a question of fact exists as to whether the accident could have been avoided. See: Carsupil v. (1st Barda, 88 A.D. 3d 604 Dept 20111); Quinones v Community Action Commission to Help the (3rd Economy Inc. 46 A.D. 3d 1326 Dept 2007). defendants' Wherefore, as a result of the foregoing the motion should be denied. Dated: Syracuse, NY December 11, 2018 Yours, etc., Anthony R. Mattoccia STANLEY LAw OFFICES Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) 2 of 3 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2018 03:54 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF2836 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2018 215 Burnet Avenue Syracuse, New York 13203 Telephone No.: (315)474-3742 File Number: 1503559 3 of 3