LaFredo v. Kazakov

Decision and Order On the afternoon of November 11, 2018, two cars were standing side-by-side facing a red light on NY22 from the Walgreens exit in Eastchester. A white arrow on the pavement at the head of the right lane occupied by plaintiff’s car pointed to the right; at the head of the left lane occupied by defendant’s car, an arrow pointed to the left.After the light turned green, both cars drove straight across NY 22 toward Main Street, a street that is roughly parallel to NY 22 until it merges into NY22 west of the traffic light. The two cars bumped against each other at the juncture of NY22 and Main Street, causing damage to both. The accident reports submitted by each party both agree that the plaintiff’s car’s driver — side door struck the defendant’s car’s passenger side bumper. If either car had taken the turn indicated by the arrow in its lane, the accident could not have happened.The plaintiff contends that he was not required to obey the arrow in his lane and turn right because the arrow was on the private property of Walgreens, not on NY22. Whether Eastchester has sanctioned the arrow by local law or ordinance is not part of the record. See VTL §1640-a(2) The defendant contends that the arrow in his lane permitted him to cross NY22 and then make a left turn on Main Street.Both are wrong. The New York State Department of Transportation (“DOT”)” conceptually approved” the “traffic related signage” of the Walgreens site, which included the arrows at the Walgreens exit. See Resolution dated March 22, 2006, on application 05-49, 370 White Plains Road (NY22) of the Town of Eastchester Planning Board.The DOT has approved the terms on which drivers may use the Walgreen’s roadway to exit the premises. The arrows should be treated as binding signals. See People v. Murphy, 169 Misc. 2d357. (VTL §1640-a(2) was not meant to preclude state law).The defendant thought he was obeying the Walgreens arrow by making a left turn, but a sign for a left turn applies only to the roadway it points toward, not another roadway that can only be reached by crossing the roadway to which the arrow pertains.In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff has not met his burden of proving negligence by a preponderance of the evidence and the case is accordingly dismissed.Judgment for defendant.Dated: February 28, 2019