You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HIS “BRAKES FAILED” WAS DEEMED SELF-SERVING AND INADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s failure to offer a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision warranted the award of summary judgment to plaintiff. The statement attributed to defendant in a certified police report claiming his “brakes failed” was deemed self-serving and inadmissible:

… [T]he plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting their respective affidavits, which demonstrated, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ vehicle was traveling at a constant speed of 35 miles per hour in the right lane for at least one minute when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . The plaintiffs also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendants’ first affirmative defense, alleging comparative negligence, by demonstrating that they were not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident … . Barr v Canales, 2024 NY Slip Op 04944, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statement that his “brakes failed” was deemed self-serving and inadmissible in this rear-end collision case.

 

You might also like
INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR BY NOT SEEKING A STAY OF ARBITRATION, THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT A PASSENGER AT THE TIME OF THE HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiffs’ Action—Doctrines Clearly Described
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Anders” Brief Rejected
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE THE CLOSING DATE OR THE MORTGAGE TERMS; THE CONTRACT WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (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

THE FACT THAT A MORTGAGE IS MERELY INSURED BY HUD OR THE FHA DOES NOT MAKE THE... THE APPLICATION TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM (NOI) AS A...