Edwards v. Gorman

162 A.D.3d 1480

78 N.Y.S.3d 536

Michael EDWARDS and Karen Rothenbergh, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.Francine M. GORMAN, Rural/Metro of Rochester, Inc., Rural/Metro Medical Services, Rural/metro of New York, Inc., R/M Management Co., Inc. (also known as Rural/Metro Management), and Rural/Metro Corporation, Defendants–Respondents.

CA 17–01585

404

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: June 8, 2018

FARACI LANGE, LLP, ROCHESTER (CAROL A. MCKENNA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, ROCHESTER (PATRICK B. NAYLON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and plaintiffs' motion is granted in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Michael Edwards (plaintiff) when he was struck by an ambulance driven by defendant Francine M. Gorman. At the time of the collision, plaintiff, a parking attendant, was tasked with instructing vehicles traveling in a two-lane, one-way "pass-through" road of the entrance loop of Strong Memorial Hospital on how to reach an alternate entrance for a nearby parking garage. Plaintiff was standing in the center of the pass-through road between the two lanes of travel, and Gorman struck him as she was slowing down for a stop sign at the end of the pass-through road. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and defendants cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of plaintiff's comparative fault. Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion, and plaintiffs appeal. We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in denying their motion.

We note at the outset that the issue of serious injury was previously decided in plaintiffs' favor, and no appeal was taken from that order. Thus, in seeking partial summary judgment on liability, plaintiffs were required to establish only that Gorman was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. We conclude that plaintiffs met that burden by providing photographs, video footage and Gorman's deposition testimony in which she admitted that she executed a wide turn through multiple lanes of the pass-through road, which constitutes a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) (see Gabriel v. Great Lakes Concrete Prods....