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 MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS AGAINST EMERGENCY-ROOM PHYSICIANS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S GUNSHOT WOUNDS; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY FAMILIARITY WITH EMERGENCY MEDICINE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant-Attorney Can Seek Contribution from Succeeding Attorney Who Contributed to Plaintiff’s Damages
Waiver of Right to Appeal Invalid Despite the Signing of a Written Waiver
COMPLAINT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN STEMMING FROM THE SHOOTING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT BY HER LIVE-IN COMPANION, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOWN AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI ANALYSIS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 42 USC 1983, FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE CONSTITUTED A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED INJURY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A “PROTECTOR” ON A GRINDER.
UNDER THE 2022 FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT BANKS CAN NO LONGER STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUING A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 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...