You are here: / / THE ALLEGATION THE LEAD CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGHT TO DEFEAT LEAD...

THE ALLEGATION THE LEAD CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGHT TO DEFEAT LEAD CAR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the owner of the lead car struck from behind was entitled to summary judgment. The allegation the lead car stopped suddenly was not sufficient to raise a question of fact:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle, and imposes a duty on the part of that driver to “come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident” … . A claim by the rear driver that “the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence” … . Bajrami v Twinkle Cab Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01458, 1st Dept 2-23-17

NEGLIGENCE (THE ALLEGATION THE LEAD CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGHT TO DEFEAT LEAD CAR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, THE ALLEGATION THE LEAD CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGHT TO DEFEAT LEAD CAR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/REAR-END COLLISIONS  (THE ALLEGATION THE LEAD CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGHT TO DEFEAT LEAD CAR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 30-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT A DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Relation-Back” and “Savings Clause” Statutes Explained
THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE DATE WAS PROPERLY SET; THE BUYER WAS NOT ABLE TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE: DEFENDANTS-SELLERS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DOWNPAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE (DOING NOTHING), AS OPPOSED MISFEASANCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S OWN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE CLEANED THE AREA WHERE HE STEPPED ON A NAIL PROVED DEFENDANT DID NOT NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE NAIL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY IN NEVADA AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK, HIS STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR A REAR-END COLLISION; DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL DOWN A STAIRWAY LEADING TO THE RESTAURANT BASEMENT... JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY...