You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case was properly granted, despite defendant's (McCrowell's) claim plaintiff stopped 150 feet from the car in front:

Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting McCrowell's deposition testimony, the injured plaintiff's deposition testimony, and the injured plaintiff's affidavit, which demonstrated that the injured plaintiff's vehicle was stopped in heavy traffic when it was struck in the rear by the appellants' vehicle … .

In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. McCrowell's statement in his affidavit that the injured plaintiff brought his vehicle to a stop at least 150 feet behind the stopped vehicle in front of him did not adequately rebut the inference of negligence given McCrowell's deposition testimony that he was able to bring his vehicle to a stop behind the injured plaintiff's vehicle on two occasions prior to the accident in heavy stop-and-go traffic without incident during the one minute that the injured plaintiff was traveling in front of McCrowell's vehicle … . Even if the injured plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop, “vehicle 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” … . Melendez v McCrowell, 2016 NY Slip Op 04028, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/REAR-END COLLISION (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE)

You might also like
No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based” Surgery
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
DAMAGES FOR FRAUD SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED UPON OUT OF POCKET LOSS, NOT PROFITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED ABSENT THE FRAUD, EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE DAMAGES UNDER THE OUT OF POCKET RULE, NO RELIEF CAN BE AFFORDED TO THE NONAPPEALING PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION WAS STRUCK BY A PIPE WHICH FELL AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED FROM A TRUCK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD THE VIOLATION OF ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS TO THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts

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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF... STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL.