IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED IN THE HIGHWAY LANE FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end collision case, determined defendant’s affirmation that plaintiff stopped for no apparent reason raised and question of fact:

… [T]he plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through the submission of the plaintiff driver’s affidavit, in which he averred that his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a] …). However, an affirmation of the defendant driver, submitted in opposition to the motion, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for the defendants’ vehicle striking the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. According to the defendant driver, the plaintiff driver was solely at fault for causing the accident by making a sudden stop for no apparent reason in the middle of their lane of traffic on the highway … . Ramirez v Red Cloud Trucking, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05332, Second Dept 9-16-26

Practice Point: In this rear-end collision case, defendant’s affirmation that plaintiff stopped in the highway lane for no apparent reason raised a question of fact whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for striking the back of plaintiff’s vehicle.