You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined there was a question of fact whether a taxi driver (Rahman) breached a duty to a pedestrian (O’Connor) by positioning the cab partially in a traffic lane such that the view of drivers approaching from the rear was obstructed. The pedestrian, who had just gotten out of the cab, was struck by another cab (driven by Aidoo) when he attempted to cross the road. Any breach related to letting the passenger/pedestrian off too far from the curb was not the proximate cause of the injuries:

Rahman’s taxicab, which was stopped at least partially in the right travel lane, may have obscured Aidoo’s view of O’Connor as O’Connor began to cross the street. This raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Rahman’s positioning of his car at least partially in a travel lane was a violation of the traffic rules of the City of New York (see 34 RCNY 4-08[e]), and whether that violation was a proximate cause of the collision and of O’Connor’s injuries and death … .

Contrary to the position taken by our dissenting colleague, the duty of a common carrier to safely discharge a passenger is not the sole basis asserted for liability in this action. The asserted liability of Rahman does not depend on whether he breached his duty to O’Connor as his passenger. Rahman’s alleged breach of that duty, by letting O’Connor off too far from the curb, did not proximately cause O’Connor’s injuries, which resulted from his attempt to cross the street …  . Instead, liability arises, if at all, from Rahman’s breach of duty to O’Connor as a pedestrian by positioning his cab partially in a traffic lane, thereby obstructing the view of drivers approaching from the rear … . O’Connor v Ronnie Cab Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05980, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR)/PEDESTRIANS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR)/TAXICABS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR)

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGED AWARENESS OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
Statutorily-Mandated Venue Is Not Jurisdictional and Is Waivable
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE LAID AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION FOR THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE, A CONDITION PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION; ANY WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WENT TO ITS WEIGHT NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (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

COUNTY HAD AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAGE FREEZE TO ADDRESS A FINANCIAL CRISIS. QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE...