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
Discovery Demands Overbroad
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH PARTY DEPOSITIONS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION PAPERS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT BECAUSE NO EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT WAS OFFERED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S BUS CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE AND STRUCK HIS TAXI CAB (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DOCTOR WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL PRACTICE OR HABIT IN PERFORMING KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THREE OF THE CHILDREN BY THROWING AN OBJECT AT MOTHER AND YELLING AT MOTHER WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY UNENFORCEABLE.
THE POLICE WITNESSES AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WERE NOT CREDIBLE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (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 © 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...