You are here: / / Rear-End Collision Warranted Summary Judgment on Liability

Rear-End Collision Warranted Summary Judgment on Liability

In a rear-end collision case, the Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability should have been granted:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . “A claim that the driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the defendant’s vehicle struck his vehicle in the rear as the plaintiff’s vehicle was slowing down for traffic in front of it … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “[V]ehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead” … . Robayo v Aghaabdul, 2013 NY slip Op 05889, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS MARKED OFF THE CALENDAR BUT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED.
THE NOTICE TO ADMIT SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTROVERSY AND THEREFORE WAS PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNSUCCESSFULLY RAISED USURY AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE BROKER’S COMMISSION, TITLE INSURANCE COST AND ATTORNEY’S FEE CONSTITUTED A COVER FOR USURY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether City Had Notice of Pothole in Bicycle-Injury Case;... No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care...