You are here: / / THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE FROM BEHIND...
, ,

THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE FROM BEHIND FLED THE SCENE BUT WAS IDENTIFIED BY A LICENSE PLATE FOUND AT THE SCENE; DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE BUT DENIED OPERATING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THAT ALLEGATION DID NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF PERMISSIVE USE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic-accident case, determined defendant’s allegation he was not driving his vehicle at the time of the accident did not overcome the presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388(1). The vehicle which struck plaintiffs’ stopped vehicle fled the scene. But defendant admitted the license plate found at the scene was from his vehicle:

The plaintiff Manu Kanwar was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff Mahesh Kashyap when it was struck in the rear by another vehicle. Although the rear vehicle fled the scene, it allegedly was identified by its license plate, which had fallen off that vehicle at the accident scene. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. In his answer, the defendant, inter alia, admitted to owning a vehicle bearing the license plate number identified in the complaint, asserted an affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiffs were comparatively at fault, and asserted a counterclaim against Kashyap. * * *

The plaintiffs’ affidavits demonstrated, inter alia, that Kashyap’s vehicle was stopped for the traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle and that the defendant, as the owner of the vehicle, was negligent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 388, 1129[a] …). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In his affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, the defendant merely averred that he was not operating his vehicle at the time of the accident. However, this was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1)… , and it was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his vehicle was not involved in the accident … . Kashyap v Dasilva, 2024 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant acknowledged ownership of the vehicle which struck plaintiff’s stopped vehicle from behind and left the scene, but denied he was operating it at the time of the accident. That denial did not overcome the presumption that whoever was driving the vehicle was doing so with the owner’s permission (Vehicle and Traffic Law 388). Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
[Harmless] Error to Deny Defense a Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Testimony of Private Investigator About What Could Be Seen from a Certain Vantage Point (Calling Into Question Testimony Identifying the Defendant)
KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING THEORY, FRAUD IN THIS CASE; AN AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN OR OBTAIN A MORTGAGE IS A CONTRACT INVOLVING AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND IS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS WRITING-REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ARRANGEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTHER’S VIOLATION OF THE ORDER ALLOWING VISITATION BY GRANDMOTHER CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT). ​
DRIVER/OWNER OF THE MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE IS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S LAW FIRM PROPERLY GRANTED, AN ATTORNEY FROM THE FIRM RETAINED BY PLAINTIFF WORKED ON PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND SUBSEQUENTLY JOINED THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (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

PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF... DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS...