You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION,...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendant city owned the sanitation truck (driven by McPhillips) which struck the car in which plaintiff was a passenger:

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the parties’ deposition testimony, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault for the happening of the subject accident, and that McPhillips was negligent. Contrary to the City’s contention, the transcript of McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not reveal a triable issue of fact as to whether he demonstrated a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision into the other vehicle. Even if, as McPhillips testified, the other vehicle came to a sudden stop at the subject intersection’s yellow traffic light, McPhillips should have anticipated that the other vehicle might come to a stop at the intersection … . Furthermore, McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not rebut the inference of negligence from the rear-end collision, as he testified that he knew that the road was wet from a recent rain shower and he failed to demonstrate that his skid on known road conditions was unavoidable … . Tumminello v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02083, 2nd Dept, 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT SENTENCING; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE OR THE DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE A VERMONT OFFENSE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE; THEREFORE THE PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY ADJUDICATION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
A “HIGH COST LOAN” AS DEFINED BY THE BANKING LAW IS A DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS REQUIRED TO SHOW STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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

PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY... PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSE...