You are here: / / DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT...
,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff, the front-most driver in this rear-end collision action, was negligent:

Hersh [defendant] raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Hersh submitted his own affidavit in which he asserted that, prior to the accident, traffic was moving well and there was no ongoing road construction. Hersh asserted that the plaintiff then “suddenly and unexpectedly jammed on his brakes in front of me,” that Hersh “braked hard” and was able to stop without hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle, but that the vehicle behind Hersh then struck Hersh’s vehicle “twice in the rear,” pushing Hersh’s vehicle into the plaintiff’s vehicle. Hersh stated in his affidavit that, after the accident, he “looked all around on the nearby grass and even under plaintiff’s SUV but did not see any cone” obstructing the lane as the plaintiff claimed. Hersh’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Hersh had a nonnegligent explanation for hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle … . Joseph-Felix v Hersh, 2022 NY Slip Op 04905, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant in this rear-end collision case raised a question of fact about whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for defendant’s striking plaintiff’s car.

Practice Point: Although plaintiff’s lack of comparative negligence need no longer be asserted in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a rear-end collision case, the issue may be considered at the summary judgment stage if plaintiff moves to dismiss defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED WITHOUT A WARRANT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER, SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY SUED AS “JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY;” COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL HELD AND MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).
VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER A GRATUITOUS BAILMENT THEORY FOR DESTROYED GOODS; PROPER WAY TO CALCULATE DAMAGES FOR THE DESTROYED GOODS UNDER A CONTRACT THEORY EXPLAINED.
Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action

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

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE... ​ THE CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID NOT...