You are here: / / DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION...

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OR PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic accident case, determined defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff “stopped short” did not raise a question of fact:

The court should have granted plaintiff for summary judgment on liability. Plaintiff established prima facie that defendant was negligent by submitting his affidavit that defendant’s vehicle rear-ended his vehicle as he slowed down or stopped to accommodate another vehicle that was merging in from his right, and defendant failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision …  Defendant claimed only that defendant [plaintiff?] stopped short, which, by itself, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence … . Contrary to the motion court’s finding, plaintiff was not required to establish absence of comparative negligence on his part to be entitled to summary judgment on liability … .

In view of plaintiff’s affidavit establishing his own lack of fault and his seatbelt usage, and the absence of any proof to the contrary, the affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and failure to wear a seatbelt, as well as the irrelevant defense of assumption of risk, are also dismissed … . Vasquez v Strickland, 2022 NY Slip Op 06876, First Dept 12-1-22

Practice Point: In a rear-end traffic accident, defendant’s allegation plaintiff “stopped short” does not raise a question of fact.

 

You might also like
NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff’s Inability to Identify the Precise Sidewalk Defect Which Caused Her Fall (In a Photograph) Did Not Warrant Summary Judgment to the Defendant—Plaintiff Testified She Tripped on a Bump in the Sidewalk
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A SURRENDER OF THE LEASED PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, THEREBY LIMITING TENANT’S LIABILITY FOR ABANDONMENT OF THE LEASE WITH TEN YEARS REMAINING (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPTICAL CONFUSION OBSCURED A STEP, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER INJURED HIM, THE LADDER DID NOT FAIL AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) AND THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE EVEN IF THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT). ​
8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
The “Strict Compliance” Rule Re: Documents Required for a Drawdown from a Letter of Credit Explained
THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A PRIEST WHILE ATTENDING DEFENDANT’S... THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT CAUSE...