You are here: / / DEFENDANT ASSERTED SHE THOUGHT PLAINTIFF’S CAR WOULD GO THROUGH THE...

DEFENDANT ASSERTED SHE THOUGHT PLAINTIFF’S CAR WOULD GO THROUGH THE YELLOW LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT RAN INTO THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHEN IT CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP, DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant, in this traffic accident case, failed to raise a question of fact about a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision. Defendant asserted that it “appeared” the lead vehicle and plaintiff’s vehicle (behind the lead vehicle) were going to go through the yellow light at the intersection. Defendant further asserted that the lead vehicle came to a sudden stop, plaintiff’s vehicle struck the lead vehicle, and then defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s. The court held that defendant should have anticipated the sudden stop because of the yellow light:

The defendant driver’s assertion that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the collision between the plaintiff’s vehicle and the defendants’ vehicle … . Even if, as the defendant driver asserted, the plaintiff had come to a sudden stop at the traffic light, the defendant driver should have anticipated that the plaintiff’s vehicle might come to a stop at the intersection, especially where, according to the defendant driver’s own affidavit, the traffic light already turned yellow … . The defendant driver was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between her vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle, notwithstanding that it “appeared” to her that the lead vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle were “going to attempt to beat the light'” … . Therefore, in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Catanzaro v Edery, 2019 NY Slip Op 03762, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

You might also like
CPLR ARTICLE 63-A IS CONSTITUTIONAL; THE STATUTE ALLOWS ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK ORDER PROHIBITING A RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM BASED UPON EVIDENCE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB PRECLUDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE NOTICE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACTION WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES.
Claim Re: Ownership of Real Property Precluded by Laches Defense
Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE EXISTS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Paving Over Walk Where Plaintiff Fell Justified Striking the Answer and Granting Summary Judgment on Liability

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

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO THE CHARGES IN TWO INDICTMENTS, WITH RESPECT TO ONE... DEFENDANT’S PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIS MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED...