You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Carpentieri v. Kloc

Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 00772Docket: 930 CA 21-01669

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 9, 2023; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's order granting Richard A. Carpentieri's motions for summary judgment in multiple related actions stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when Carpentieri, driving northbound, collided with a vehicle operated by Paul Kloc (deceased), who unexpectedly entered the highway from a driveway while attempting to make a left turn. Carpentieri initiated action No. 1 to seek damages for his injuries, while Selective Insurance Company, as subrogee of Kloc Blossom Chapel, pursued action No. 2 for insurance recovery related to Kloc's vehicle damage. The Estate of Paul Kloc filed action No. 3 for wrongful death, and Elaine Kloc, a passenger in Kloc's vehicle, initiated action No. 4 for her injuries. Carpentieri argued that Kloc was negligent and solely responsible for the accident, seeking summary judgment to dismiss the claims against him in all actions. The court unanimously upheld the summary judgment, agreeing that Kloc's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that the Supreme Court erred in granting Carpentieri's motions. It affirmed that a driver with the right-of-way can expect other drivers to adhere to traffic laws and is not comparatively negligent if they have seconds to react to a vehicle that fails to yield. Carpentieri demonstrated that he was driving in the passing lane with the right-of-way when the decedent's vehicle abruptly entered his lane, giving him only two seconds to react, as supported by expert testimony. An investigating officer also concluded that Carpentieri was not at fault for the accident.

Although Carpentieri was driving under the influence, both the expert and the officer asserted that his intoxication did not contribute to the collision, which was solely caused by the decedent's actions. The appellants did not substantiate their claims of Carpentieri's negligence as a proximate cause of the accident. Their expert's assertion that Carpentieri's speed contributed to his inability to react was deemed speculative and insufficient to counter Carpentieri's evidence. Similarly, the claim that his intoxication impaired his decision-making was also speculative and inadequate to raise a factual issue. Consequently, the court found no need to address the appellants' other arguments.