You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition in which defendant testified plaintiff stopped abruptly for no apparent reason:

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 rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . “A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, sudden or unavoidable circumstances'” … .

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony, submitted in support of the motion, demonstrated that her vehicle was struck in the rear while stopped on the exit ramp due to traffic conditions, thus raising an inference of the defendant driver’s negligence. However, the plaintiff’s submissions also included a transcript of the defendant driver’s deposition testimony, wherein he testified that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to an abrupt stop when there was no vehicular traffic in front of it on the exit ramp, and the two vehicles collided. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s motion papers presented a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent in the happening of the subject accident … . Richter v Delutri, 2018 NY Slip Op 07475, Second Dept 11-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, REAR END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS ( QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;” THEREFORE NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE FIRST DEGREE IS NOT A REGISTERABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; A SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION IS APPEALABLE WHEN THE ERROR IS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or Monetary Penalties
PLAINTIFF, AFTER A SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ASSIGNED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO SUE DEFENDANT’S INSURER ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, THE INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS BASED SOLELY UPON READING THE COMPLAINT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING SPACES; THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED BECAUSE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRED 624 PARKING SPACES; BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS INVALID, PETITIONER COULD NOT INVOKE THE “DOCTRINE OF VESTED RIGHTS” FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING 557 SPACES (SECOND DEPARTMENT).

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE... PLAINTIFF RETAILER ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A BANK STEMMING FROM...