You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END...

DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION, DIFFICULTY SEEING BECAUSE OF SUNLIGHT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this traffic-accident case:

In this rear-end collision case, the fact that the truck owned and operated by defendants had entered onto the parkway one exit earlier than authorized by a permit issued by the Department of Transportation, standing alone, does not establish that the early entry onto the parkway was a proximate cause of the accident … . The record reflects that the accident occurred on a dry and sunny day with light traffic, that defendant Paolino was driving the truck slowly, and that Paolino had turned on the truck’s hazard lights. The truck’s presence on the parkway merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, but not its cause … .

Plaintiffs’ proffered excuse for the accident, that the bright sunlight may have made it difficult for the decedent to see defendants’ truck driving through the tunnel, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collusion … . The affidavit by plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert is not based on any evidence and therefore fails to raise an issue of fact … . Battocchio v Paolino, 2019 NY Slip Op 02477, First Dept 4-2-19

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Waiver of 12-Person Jury Upheld
FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO RESPONDENT’S NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 SHOIULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER LESS INTRUSIVE METHODS FOR ROOF PROTECTION OF RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY COULD BE USED TO FACILITATE FACADE WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS STANDARD APPLIED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-POLICE CAR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AS HE USED IT TO THROW TRASH INTO A DUMPSTER; THE ALLEGATION HE WAS TOLD NOT TO USE THAT DUMPSTER DID NOT RAISE A SOLE-PROXIMATE-CAUSE OR RECALCITRANT-EMPLOYEE DEFENSE (FIRST 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

CONVERSION OF A HISTORIC LOWER MANHATTAN LANDMARK, A RARE CLOCK AND CLOCK TOWER,... PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT THE...