You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC...
,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFFS’ CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s allegation plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a sudden stop did not raise a question of fact about defendant’s negligence in this rear-end collision case:

… [T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the accident, or whether the emergency doctrine applied to this case … . “[T]he emergency doctrine does not apply to typical accidents involving rear-end collisions because trailing drivers are required to leave a reasonable distance between their vehicles and vehicles ahead” … . Although the defendants submitted a police accident report and the affidavit of Miller, both of which contained statements that the plaintiffs’ vehicle made a sudden stop behind a vehicle that came to an abrupt stop in front of them, Miller testified at his deposition that he could not recall the speed at which he was traveling, or when he first observed the plaintiffs’ vehicle, prior to the accident. “Without such evidence, the assertion that the [plaintiffs’] vehicle came to a sudden stop was insufficient to rebut the inference that [Miller] was negligent” … , and failed to demonstrate that the emergency doctrine was applicable to this case … . Capuozzo v Miller, 2020 NY Slip Op 07026, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

You might also like
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ASSESSMENT OF POINTS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
RESPONDENT MATERNAL UNCLE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DID NOT EFFECTIVELY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ATTIC FLOOR AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
REAR MOST DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER IN FRONT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND DID NOT SIGNAL (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

NONPARTY BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED POSSESSION OF A CAR SUBJECT TO CIVIL... UNDER THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI ANALYSIS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER...