You are here: / / DEFENDANTS IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT;...
,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS’ STOPPED VEHICLE WAS HIT FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLANTIFF’S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Menegos defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The Menegos defendants demonstrated their vehicle had come to a stop behind plaintiff’s vehicle before it was struck from behind and pushed into plaintiff’s vehicle:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “‘A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence'” … . “Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . Thus, in a three-vehicle chain-collision accident, the defendant operator/owner of the middle vehicle “may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … . Beltre v Menegos, 2024 NY Slip Op 05322, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, if a stopped car is hit from behind and pushed into the car in front, the driver of the stopped car is not negligent.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY REQUIRED A MORE PROBING COLLOQUY BEFORE ACCEPTING THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Alleged Failure to Secure Mirror Which Fell During Removal Required Jury Charge on “Falling Objects” Theory
Several Similar Thefts from the Same Store Constituted a Single, Continuing Crime
TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT VIOLATE THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD BY MAKING A U-TURN IN RESPONSE TO A CALL FOR ASSISTANCE; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY.
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON THE BASKETBALL COURT WHICH WAS WET WITH CONDENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Unable to Pinpoint the Cause of Her Fall—“Feigned Issue” Raised In an Affidavit Could Not Stave Off Summary Judgment

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

IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, A SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT... AFTER SKIING ALL DAY AND RETURNING THE EQUIPMENT, CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL...