You are here: / / THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT A NON-NEGLIGENT...

THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR A REAR-END COLLISION; DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was stopped when the collision occurred:

There is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could possibly support the jury’s verdict based on the evidence presented at trial … . Defendant Tracy Murphy acknowledged that plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped when she struck plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear. Murphy’s claim that plaintiff had stopped at a yellow light does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . Smyth v Murphy, 2019 NY Slip Op 08353, First Dept 11-19-19

 

You might also like
PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVIDE AID IN DYING TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; THE STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) VIOLATED THE LESS IS MORE ACT (LIMA) BY FAILING TO HOLD A RECOGNIZANCE HEARING WITHIN 24 HOURS, AND FAILING TO HOLD A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PAROLE-VIOLATION WARRANT; HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
IN THIS SCAFFOLD-FALL CASE, EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD BUT DID NOT REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (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

SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION... MOTHER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE RIGHTS HER SON WAS GIVING UP BY ADMITTING TO THE...