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
Rear-End Collision Liability Explained
DISCOVERY OF PRIOR ASSAULTS IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PRIOR ASSAULTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENTS, ASSAULTS OF ANY KIND MAY HAVE PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIMELY MAIL THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AFTER SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 308 (2) IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH IS NOT CURED BY LATE MAILING (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS REJECTED WAS A NULLITY WHICH COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SEND THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON (SECOND DEPT).
No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care of Child Who Died After Suffering an Allergic Reaction in School

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

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...