You are here: / / ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S...

ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

The Second Department determined defendant driver’s allegation that plaintiff stopped suddenly was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … . Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the submission of her own affidavit, in which she averred that her vehicle was stopped on Northern Boulevard at its intersection with 157th Street, when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. This affidavit demonstrated, prima facie, that Veliz was negligent and that she was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the subject accident.

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff stopped her vehicle suddenly was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the happening of the accident, and it did not provide the defendants with a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Nikolic v City-Wide Sewer & Drain Serv. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03524, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)

You might also like
Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball
FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT’S INQUIRY ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION, A COMPLAINT, AND/OR A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD RARELY GO BEYOND WHETHER, ASSUMING THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS, A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN STATED (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Imputed Income to Husband (Higher than that Reported by Husband) in Awarding Pendente Lite Maintenance and Child Support
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID SHE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY...