You are here: / / DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S...
,

DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this rear-end collision case was entitled to summary judgment. Defendant’s allegation his foot slipped off the brake pedal because of rocks and pebbles under the floor mat did not present a nonnegligent explanation for striking plaintiff’s stopped vehicle:

[Defendant’s] assertion that he tried to apply the brakes on his vehicle to avoid a collision with the plaintiff’s vehicle, but his foot slipped off the brake pedal due to rocks and pebbles under the floor mat, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the accident, or whether the emergency doctrine applied … . Donnellan v LaMarche, 2023 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Here defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. Defendant’s explanation that his foot slipped off the brake pedal was not enough to raise a question of fact about either a nonnegligent explanation or the applicability of the emergency doctrine.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE WIFE’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADULTERY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, WHICH, IF PROVEN, WOULD HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HUSBAND, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE HUSBAND AND THE WOMAN WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE WIFE’S ALLEGATIONS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS DENYING ANY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP; THE WIFE’S AFFIDAVIT WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON PROXIMITY–THE WOMAN WAS THE FAMILY’S BABYSITTER–AND WAS OTHERWISE UNSUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGES IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ORDER UNIFIED PERSONAL INJURY TRIALS WHERE THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND THE INJURIES ARE INTERTWINED AS THEY WERE IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE AND A NEW UNIFIED TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENHANCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BASED ON A POSITIVE DRUG TEST; DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT AS IT WAS DESCRIBED ON THE RECORD BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE RESIDENTIAL DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS WHAT THE PLEA AGREEMENT CALLED FOR (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE... PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S FINGER WAS CAUGHT IN A DOOR SHUT BY ANOTHER STUDENT...