You are here: / / DRIVER OF MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS THREE-CAR REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE...

DRIVER OF MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS THREE-CAR REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the middle driver, Budziak, in this three-car rear-end collision case was entitled to summary judgment:

“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 come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence” … . ” Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation'” … . Thus, “[i]n a chain collision accident, the operator of the middle vehicle may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … .

Here, Budziak established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she was stopped in traffic behind Hakimi’s vehicle when her vehicle was struck in the rear by Barnett’s vehicle and propelled into Hakimi’s vehicle … . Mihalatos v Barnett, 2019 NY Slip Op 06082, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

You might also like
THE AFFIANT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE NOTE WAS PHYSICALLY DELIVERED TO THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT PLAINTIFF POSSESSED THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
Insurer Did Not Demonstrate, as a Matter of Law, the Denials of Claims Were Timely and Properly Mailed—Summary Judgment In Favor of Insurer Should Not Have Been Granted
Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late Motion to Amend Bill of Particulars
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE ANSWER DESPITE THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; THE DEFENDANT GETS A SECOND CHANCE TO ADD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IF THE COURT GRANT’S LEAVE TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT). ​
SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT AVOID ARBITRATION SIMPLY BECAUSE PARTIES ENTWINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SIGNATORIES (SECOND DEPT).
LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.
Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevail
DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE DEFENDANT THE WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD HE GO TO TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIED (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 BUS DRIVER RESPONDED REASONABLY UPON HEARING THE... NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD HOUSED FOR MORE...