You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION,...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendant city owned the sanitation truck (driven by McPhillips) which struck the car in which plaintiff was a passenger:

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the parties’ deposition testimony, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault for the happening of the subject accident, and that McPhillips was negligent. Contrary to the City’s contention, the transcript of McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not reveal a triable issue of fact as to whether he demonstrated a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision into the other vehicle. Even if, as McPhillips testified, the other vehicle came to a sudden stop at the subject intersection’s yellow traffic light, McPhillips should have anticipated that the other vehicle might come to a stop at the intersection … . Furthermore, McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not rebut the inference of negligence from the rear-end collision, as he testified that he knew that the road was wet from a recent rain shower and he failed to demonstrate that his skid on known road conditions was unavoidable … . Tumminello v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02083, 2nd Dept, 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Not Entitled to Dismissal of Complaint On Ground that Condition of the Property Was Open and Obvious
Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)
PETITIONER WAS 14 IN 1990 WHEN HE MURDERED A CLASSMATE AND THE CHILD SHE WAS BABYSITTING, THE PAROLE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED PAROLE FOR THE FIFTH TIME, THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DID NOT BASE THEIR DECISION SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANKS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DID NOT STOP FOR A RED LIGHT AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR AS PLAINTIFF WAS PASSING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION; FAILING TO STOP FOR A RED LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY APPROVAL BUT NO DEADLINE FOR ATTORNEY-APPROVAL WAS SET BY THE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL INFORMED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE EITHER SEVEN OR NINE DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, WHICH WAS DEEMED A REASONABLE TIME (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

PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY... PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSE...