You are here: / / MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND,...

MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been to the driver of the middle car in this three-car rear-end collision case. The middle driver demonstrated the driver of the last car struck the middle car and propelled the middle car into the first car, driven by plaintiff:

​

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…). Hence, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation” … .

Here, [the driver of the middle car] established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that his vehicle was slowing down in response to a traffic condition ahead, and that his vehicle was then propelled forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle after his vehicle was struck in the rear by [the car behind]. Pomerantsev v Vladimir Kodinsky, 2017 NY Slip Op 08545, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (NEGLIGENCE, MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE, SUBMITTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL AND JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF, WARRANTED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Extent of Court Review of Town Board’s Assessment of an Environmental Impact Statement Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Explained
PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE RELATING TO HIS MURDER CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH PETITIONER’S HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL COURT; THE FEDERAL COURT HAD ISSUED A STAY-IN-ABEYANCE ORDER TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).
WORKER STRUCK BY DEBRIS WHICH FELL THROUGH A GAP IN PROTECTIVE NETTING ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO A ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENFORCED, PLAINTIFF HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHEN THE DEFENDANT COULD TAKE AN ACTION WHICH BREACHED THE CONTRACT, HERE THE ALLEGED BREACH BY DEFENDANT DIDN’T TAKE PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED... PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK...