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
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL; THE “STORM IN PROGRESS” RULE ONLY NEGATED THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO CLEAR THE ICE AND SNOW; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER, DUE TO UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS, NEGLECTED ONE CHILD AND DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE OTHER CHILDREN; THE CRITERIA FOR A NEGLECT FINDING IN THIS CONTEXT ARE LAID OUT IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WHO WAS HANDED THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE ACTION WAS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLETE PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR 3408) IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN “APPEARANCE” IN THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FIVE DAYS NOTICE (PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (G)) RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (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 © 2026 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...