You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition in which defendant testified plaintiff stopped abruptly for no apparent reason:

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 rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . “A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, sudden or unavoidable circumstances'” … .

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony, submitted in support of the motion, demonstrated that her vehicle was struck in the rear while stopped on the exit ramp due to traffic conditions, thus raising an inference of the defendant driver’s negligence. However, the plaintiff’s submissions also included a transcript of the defendant driver’s deposition testimony, wherein he testified that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to an abrupt stop when there was no vehicular traffic in front of it on the exit ramp, and the two vehicles collided. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s motion papers presented a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent in the happening of the subject accident … . Richter v Delutri, 2018 NY Slip Op 07475, Second Dept 11-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, REAR END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS ( QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Shortened Statute of Limitations in Policy Enforced
PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER TO SLIP ON A STAIRWAY STEP BUT SHE TESTIFIED SHE LOOKED FOR SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO AND THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL (SECOND DEPT).
Sole Eyewitness’ Testimony at Trial Indicating She Could Not Identify the Shooter (Because of the Passage of Time and the Effects of Alcoholism and Depression) Did Not Allow the Prosecutor to Impeach Her with Her Grand Jury Testimony and Prior Identification of the Shooter
THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
BEFORE SUING A TORTFEASOR’S INSURER, PLAINTIFF MUST OBTAIN A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE POSSESSION ACTION AND THE LACHES DEFENSE, THE ACTION INVOLVED LAND THAT WAS ONCE UNDER WATER CREATED BY THE MOVEMENT OF SAND DURING STORMS DECADES AGO (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE... PLAINTIFF RETAILER ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A BANK STEMMING FROM...