You are here: / / Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Co...

Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Collision

In finding Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint against a driver (Mabella) who was struck from behind when stopped, due to mechanical trouble, in a moving lane of traffic, the Second Department explained:

Mabella established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through his submission of the deposition testimony of the parties, which demonstrates that his vehicle was fully stopped when it was struck in the rear by the Maldonado vehicle…. Although his vehicle was stopped in a moving lane of traffic, Mabella established that this was due to mechanical failure and not the result of any fault on his part…. The plaintiff and the defendants who opposed Mabella’s motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Mabella’s alleged fault in the happening of the accident. Prosen v Mabella, 2013 NY Slip Op 04589, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

 

 

You might also like
Question Whether Loan At Issue Was a “Home Loan” Requiring a Settlement Conference, Hearing Ordered
Criteria for Rescission of a Life Insurance Policy Based Upon Material Misrpresentation Explained
Community College Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation, Failed to Utterly Refute the Allegation that It Was a Public Entity Subject to FOIL Requests
CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OFFER, RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER TO MAKE SURE HIS BAIL WOULD NOT BE INCREASED; DEFENDANT WAS WORRIED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND CARE FOR HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS; THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST 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

Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk... Even though Mother Properly Awarded Custody, Father Should Have Been Awarded...