You are here: / / THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION...
,

THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN A REAR-END COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegation plaintiff made a sudden stop in this rear-end collision case did not raise a question of fact about whether there was a non-negligent cause for the traffic accident:

… [T]he plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that her vehicle was stopped for a traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ assertion that it was a sudden stop of the plaintiff’s vehicle that caused the accident was insufficient, in and of itself, to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the rear-end collision … . Genao v Cassetta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01078, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, the allegation the car in front made a sudden stop does not raised a question of fact about whether there is a non-negligent explanation for the accident.

 

You might also like
Claim Re: Ownership of Real Property Precluded by Laches Defense
PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THIS TRESPASS BY ENCROACHMENT ACTION, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE APPEAL OF A BENCH TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT),
SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SCAFFOLD-COLLAPSE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE A REFEREE’S DEED PROPERLY DENIED, A SALE PRICE LOWER THAN MARKET VALUE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE SALE, PURPORTED EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE BIDDERS WAS IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
Insufficient Evidence of Incapacity—Appointment of Guardian Reversed

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

DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING... DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS STRUCK BY AN ONCOMING CAR WHICH CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW...