Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden
The First Department reversed Supreme Court finding the fact that plaintiff was double-parked furnished the condition for the event but was not one of the causes of the accident. The defendant driver had pulled around in front of plaintiff’s vehicle and then backed into it:
The fact that a vehicle is double parked “does not automatically establish that such double parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the location of her vehicle merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes … .
The record demonstrates that plaintiff’s vehicle was double parked on a one way street. Defendants’ vehicle, moving in the same direction, successfully passed plaintiff’s vehicle on the left and pulled approximately three to four car lengths in front of it before stopping. One to two seconds later, defendants’ vehicle drove in reverse in an erratic manner and struck the front of plaintiff’s car, which was stationary at all times. Cervera v Moran, 2014 NY Slip Op 07945, 1st Dept 11-18-14