You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FRONTMOST DRIVER NEGLIGENTLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FRONTMOST DRIVER NEGLIGENTLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO A COMPLETE STOP IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, FRONTMOST DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the transit authority’s and the frontmost driver’s (Conway’s) motions for summary judgment should not have been granted in this rear-end collision case. There was evidence the bus pulled into traffic suddenly without a turn signal, and there was evidence Conway negligently brought her car to a complete stop:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a non-negligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . “However, not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver” … . “[W]here the frontmost driver also operates [their] vehicle in a negligent manner, the issue of comparative negligence is for a jury to decide”  … . …

Gill [the driver behind Conway] testified at his deposition that the bus was in the right lane when the accident occurred and that, although he could not be sure, he did not recall the bus ever entering the left lane. Additionally, in contrast to Conroy’s testimony that she attempted to gradually bring her vehicle to a stop, Gill testified that Conroy apparently panicked and slammed on her brakes when the bus pulled away from the curb. Thus, Gill’s deposition testimony raised triable issues of fact as to whether the bus entered the left lane of traffic and whether Conroy negligently brought her vehicle to a complete stop … . Conroy v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 08913, Second Dept 12-26-18

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

You might also like
RPAPL 1306 REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE FILING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE FILING WAS EIGHT DAYS LATE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Terms of a Release Must Be Enforced—Extrinsic Evidence of Intent Not Permitted
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
RESPONDENT, THE CHILDREN’S UNCLE WHO LIVED WITH THE CHILDREN’S FAMILY, WAS A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED TO MONITOR ASBESTOS LEVELS AT THE WORK SITE, AND WHO FELL AT THE SITE, WAS ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Demolition of Building Without Notice or Opportunity to Be Heard Was a Proper Exercise of City’s Police Powers

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 FALL FROM BED WAS THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO TAKE... DEFENDANT BAR NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT...