You are here: / / PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT,...
,

PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT, REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TWO DRIVERS’ NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-passenger’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted, despite questions of fact about whether either driver was negligent:

The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers (see CPLR 3212[g] …). Here, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on their motion, and in opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . It is uncontested that the injured plaintiff was a passenger seated in the rear passenger seat of the Freed vehicle. While both drivers involved in the accident submitted affidavits in which each maintained that they were free from fault, neither driver suggested that the injured plaintiff bore any fault in the happening of the accident … . Romain v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07885, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING HIS MOTHER’S ESTATE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION MAY BE A WITNESS, UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE, DISQUALIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Lawsuit Properly Dismissed on “Forum Non Conveniens” Grounds
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud Cause of Action Will Not Lie
Record Did Not Demonstrate Defendant Understood His Miranda Rights—Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE AND WAS... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (SECOND...