You are here: / / NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING...
,

NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING A LOUD “THUMP” AND FINDING THE CHILD LYING BEHIND DEFENDANT’S CAR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether she was negligence. Defendant driver heard a loud “thump” and plaintiff’s decedent, a 17-month old child, was found lying on the ground right behind defendant’s car. No one saw the impact:

Shortly before the accident, the driver had dropped off a passenger in a residential cul-de-sac, with several young children playing nearby. After pulling into a driveway and reversing out in the opposite direction, the driver began moving her vehicle forward again when she heard a loud “thump”—which was also heard by at least four other witnesses in the vicinity. Believing that her vehicle had come into contact with a parked car to her right, the driver began reversing her vehicle when a man outside urgently directed her to stop. Upon exiting the vehicle, the driver observed the infant lying on the ground “right behind” her vehicle, on the passenger side. The infant was taken to a hospital, where she died of her injuries the following day. The driver did not see the infant prior to the accident, and the record does not indicate that anyone actually observed the contact between the infant and the defendants’ vehicle. …

Under the circumstances presented, the evidence submitted by the defendants was insufficient to meet their prima facie burden of proof, since it failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the driver’s alleged negligence, including her ability to see the infant prior to the accident … . Danziger v Elias, 2021 NY Slip Op 04008, Second Dept 6-22-21

 

You might also like
Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY PROVED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, IT DID NOT PROVE THAT PILING SNOW ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK DID NOT CREATE THE ICY CONDITION; THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
LOCK BOX ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING ON WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK HIS HEAD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).
Suppression Should Not Have Been Granted Because the Officer Who Made the Vehicle Stop Had Died/Hearsay Evidence from a Police Officer Who Arrived at the Scene After the Stop and Spoke to the Deceased Officer Was Admissible at the Suppression Hearing
BANK ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained

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

HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT... DEFENDANT RADIOLOGIST WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE A MAMMOGRAM AS A ROUTINE-SCREENING...