You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY J...

PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON.

The Second Department determined defendant did not raise a question of fact in this rear-end collision case. Although defendant (Alvarez) claimed Cristea’s) car stopped suddenly for no apparent reason, defendant acknowledged Cristea’s car was stopped at the time of the collision and defendant did not see the car until the collision. Plaintiffs, who were passengers in defendant Alvarez’s car, entitled to summary judgment:

​

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, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . While a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision may include evidence of a sudden stop of the lead vehicle, vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions 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 vehicle and the vehicle ahead … .

Here, Cristea established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Cristea submitted the deposition testimony of the parties, which demonstrated that Cristea’s vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by Alvarez’s vehicle. Although Alvarez testified that Cristea’s vehicle braked suddenly, he admitted that Cristea’s vehicle was stopped at the time of impact, and that he did not see Cristea’s vehicle until he hit it. Under these circumstances, Alvarez’s claim that Cristea’s vehicle braked suddenly did not raise a triable issue fact as to whether any negligence on the part of Cristea contributed to the accident … . Gonzalez v Alvarez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04819, 2nd Dept 6-14-1

 

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IS DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IS DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IS DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON)

You might also like
A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THEIR LIABILITY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; IN ADDITION TO DEFENDANT’S MEETING THE CRITERIA, THE PEOPLE APPARENTLY LOST EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BEFORE OFFERING A PLEA DEAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Deliberately-Caused Collision Was Not An Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Driver Who Caused the Collision—However the Collision Was an Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Victim of the Deliberate Act—Therefore the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement In the Victim’s Policy Kicked In
No Proof Misrepresentation Caused Decedent to Disinherit Daughter
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER.
ALTHOUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT AND THE PETITIONER’S INJURIES, IT DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS THAT UNDERLIE THE LEGAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY; THEREFORE THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING... SMALL DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING STONES ON THE PARKING LOT WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS,...