You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IF RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted. The court noted that the issue of plaintiff’s comparative negligence can be considered at the summary judgment stage if raised as an affirmative defense:

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, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . To be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, a plaintiff does not bear the burden of establishing the absence of his or her own comparative negligence … . Although a plaintiff is not required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence … . Diamond v Comins, 2021 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

You might also like
Appropriate Statutes of Limitations and Accrual Dates Explained for “Breach of Fiduciary Duty,” Civil RICO,” and “Declaratory Judgment” Causes of Action
THE JUDGE DID NOT CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS TO THE EXTENT THE COURT-IMPOSED PAGE-LIMIT WAS EXCEEDED; REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION OF THE MOTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts and New Theories of Liability Should Not Have Been Allowed—Original Notice of Claim Inadequate
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STROKE DIAGNOSIS WAS TIMELY AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY DIAGNOSIS DECREASED THE CHANCES OF A BETTER OUTCOME (SECOND DEPT).
​HERE THERE IS AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.

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

INCONSEQUENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING... DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND...