You are here: / / BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE...

BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT).

In a rear-end collision case involving three cars and motions and cross motions for summary judgment, the Second Department carefully laid out the burdens of proof on summary judgment motions in this context, as well as the applicability of comparative negligence in this context. The plaintiff’s car was stopped and was struck in the rear by the Ramos car. Ramos alleged the Nisanov car was on the shoulder and the collision happened when Ramos avoided collision with the Nisanov car. The Nisanov defendants alleged plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in the action against Ramos, and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defense of the Nisamov defendants alleging plaintiff’s comparative negligence:

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on a cause of action asserted in a complaint generally has the burden of establishing, prima facie, “all of the essential elements of the cause of action”… . By contrast, a defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing one of the plaintiff’s causes of action may generally sustain his or her prima facie burden “by negating a single essential element” of that cause of action … . To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party need only rebut the prima facie showing made by the moving party so as to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact … . …

Ramos’s version of the accident raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Dayan Nisanov was free from fault in the happening of the accident… . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the Nisanov defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident. …

Inasmuch as the deposition testimony of Dayan Nisanov and the plaintiff indicated that Dayan Nisanov was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle, while the deposition testimony of Ramos indicated that Dayan Nisanov was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Dayan Nisanov was negligent and, if so, whether any such negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the complaint insofar as asserted against the Nisanov defendants … .

Although a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of his or her own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment as to a defendant’s liability… , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence  … . Poon v Nisanov, 2018 NY Slip Op 04365, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS  (BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Specific Disclaimers Indicating No Information Extrinsic to the Written Contract Was Relied Upon Precluded Fraud in the Inducement Cause of Action/Summary Judgment on Promissory Note Precluded—Breach of Contract Cause of Action Was Intertwined with Promissory Note
SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.
Question of Fact About Sequence of Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT).
Procedure for Determining a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Where the Defendant Submits Evidence Explained/Elements of Gross Negligence Explained
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE GRASSY AREA BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE’S “READY FOR TRIAL” STATEMENT, MADE BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS FILED, WAS CONCEDEDLY ILLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY... BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S...