You are here: / / THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION...
,

THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN A REAR-END COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegation plaintiff made a sudden stop in this rear-end collision case did not raise a question of fact about whether there was a non-negligent cause for the traffic accident:

… [T]he plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that her vehicle was stopped for a traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ assertion that it was a sudden stop of the plaintiff’s vehicle that caused the accident was insufficient, in and of itself, to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the rear-end collision … . Genao v Cassetta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01078, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, the allegation the car in front made a sudden stop does not raised a question of fact about whether there is a non-negligent explanation for the accident.

 

You might also like
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; NEW TRIAL MUST BE BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE BECAUSE OF THE JUDGE’S EXCESSIVE INVOLVEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408
Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence from Which Was Central to the People’s Case, Was Reversible Error
MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF THE CHILD AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE CHILD IN THIS DERIVATIVE NEGLECT AND ABUSE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND DEPT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING... DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS STRUCK BY AN ONCOMING CAR WHICH CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW...