You are here: / BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S...

Search Results

/

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT.

The First Department determined defendant, who had pled guilty, was entitled to a hearing on whether the police had probable cause to arrest him. The defendant alleged he was arrested on October 12 at his home. The discovery provided by the People alleged defendant was arrested the following day at the police station. The People did not respond to defendant’s allegation he was arrested at a different time and place. Because the People did not explain the circumstances of defendant’s arrest, defendant’s allegations in the omnibus motion were sufficient to require a hearing. The appeal was held in abeyance pending the hearing:​

… [D]efendant’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause at his home on October 12, 2012, at which time “[h]e was not acting in an illegal or suspicious manner,” although conclusory, was sufficient to entitle him to a hearing on the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of any evidence derived therefrom. It is undisputed that the arrest, whether it occurred on October 12 or (as the People claim) on October 13, took place “at a time and place remote from the [crime] for which [defendant] was charged” … . The People … asserted that defendant was arrested around midday on October 13, at a police station, after giving statements at the same police station that morning and the previous night. Thus, at a minimum, defendant has raised a factual dispute concerning the time of his arrest. Further, the People provided defendant with no information at all as to how, by their account, he came to be at the police station in the first place, nor did they disclose the basis on which he first came to the attention of law enforcement in this investigation … . People v McUllin, 2017 NY Slip Op 05795, 1st Dept 7-25-17​

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/PROBABLE CAUSE (ARREST, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/SUPPRESSION (PROBABLE CAUSE , BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/HEARINGS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROBABLE CAUSE, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)

/ ,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant raised the justification defense in this manslaughter case. Once the defense was raised, the People were required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s act was not justified. The Fourth Department held that the jury’s finding the defendant’s act was not justified was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he People were required to prove either that defendant lacked a subjective belief that her use of deadly physical force was necessary to protect herself against decedent’s use or imminent use of deadly physical force, or that “a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary”… . Although the jury found that the People met that burden, we conclude, upon our independent assessment of the proof… , that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded”… . Defendant’s statements at the scene and in her police interview evinced a belief that deadly force was necessary to protect her from decedent, and we conclude that the People did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that her belief was objectively unreasonable. Instead, the credible evidence established that decedent was in a drunken rage during a heated argument with defendant, that he had threatened “trouble” if the police came, that he had repeatedly forced open doors in the course of pursuing defendant through the apartment, that he was not deterred even when she armed herself with a knife, that he had cornered her in the bathroom and pulled her hair, and that he had grabbed her by the hair to prevent her from leaving the bathroom just before she stabbed him. Under those circumstances, we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that defendant lacked a reasonable belief that decedent was about to use deadly physical force against her, even though decedent was not armed … . In other words, this is not a case in which the force employed by defendant ” exceeded that which was necessary to defend [herself]’ ” … . People v Marchant, 2017 NY Slip Op 05918, 4th Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (MANSLAUGHTER,  THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)

/

HOMEOWNERS’ REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS VALID 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined petitioners, who had recently purchased the property for $103,000, had rebutted the presumption that the tax assessment of over $156,000 was valid:

Here, petitioners presented the affidavit of the associate real estate broker who had been engaged to sell the subject property, together with their own affidavits describing the underlying transactions. From June 2011 through May 2013, the subject property had been continuously, publicly and widely advertised for sale on a multiple listing service throughout the Capital Region. Flyers were distributed at the broker’s office and during open houses and showings. By May 2012, there had been more than 30 unsuccessful showings of the subject property, which prompted the initial reduction of the sale price to $110,000 in June 2012. Petitioners toured the property with the broker during an open house thereafter, and then met with the broker in May 2013 to execute their purchase offer. Two weeks later, respondents prepared their estimate of the market value of the subject property, which was significantly higher than the purchase price.

Supreme Court held that one can “scarcely envision a better indicator of value than the price established within two weeks of the assessed valuation date in an arm’s[ ]length sale of a property that was publicly listed for sale for a period of two years.” We agree, finding that petitioners’ evidence was certainly adequate to rebut the presumption of validity and also to meet their burden upon the summary judgment motion… . Respondents offered no evidence that suggests or reveals that the arm’s length transaction by which petitioners purchased the subject property was in any manner abnormal. Review of the record reveals that the reduction in the asking price was the natural product of the failure to sell the subject property for a period of two years, and respondents’ assertions to the contrary are mere speculation. Respondents further rely upon the affidavit of a licensed real estate appraiser, who explains that he arrived at the property valuation by using the comparable sales method. However, as this appraiser was unable to inspect the interior or exterior of the subject property, his report merely averaged the sales prices of similar nearby homes; he “was unable to make reliable adjustments to the comparable sales,” as the method requires … . As further adjustments in the valuation might be required, he concluded that “[his] analysis is subject to change.”

Respondents’ submissions thus failed to provide a “fair and realistic value” of the subject property … and were conclusory and speculative, such that they were insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Matter of Weslowski v Assessor of The City of Schenectady, 2017 NY Slip Op 05784, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (HOMEOWNERS’ REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS VALID 3RD DEPT)

/

ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined the two-year shutdown of electrical power generating facility, which uses Hudson River water to cool machinery and discharges warm water back into the Hudson, was not a permanent shutdown and therefore the operating permits were properly renewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, DEC was not required to hold a public adjudicatory hearing prior to issuing final … permits. It was incumbent upon DEC, after evaluating the permit applications and reviewing all comments submitted in response to them, to “determine whether or not to conduct a public hearing ‘based on whether the evaluation or comments raise substantive and significant issues relating to any findings or determinations [DEC] is required to make . . ., including the reasonable likelihood that [the permits] will be denied or can be granted only with major modifications to the project” … . The ultimate burden rested on petitioner to show that its issues were “substantive and significant” enough to warrant a public hearing … .

In that regard, while petitioner raised a number of concerns regarding the draft … permit, it also acknowledged that the draft permit was largely identical to the existing permit… , one that DEC noted had only been issued after extensive administrative proceedings and an adjudicatory hearing. Moreover, to the extent that the draft … permit modified the terms of the prior permit, those modifications reduced the impact of the station upon the river. The objection to the Title V permit amounted to the rather obvious point that a station in service would create more atmospheric emissions than one offline. DEC issued a written response to petitioner’s comments and, while it did make modifications as a result of the concerns raised, it gave no reason to believe that those concerns might have required extensive retooling of either permit or imperiled their issuance altogether. Accordingly, mindful as we are that our judgment should not be substituted for that of the agency, the determination that petitioner had failed to demonstrate the need for an adjudicatory hearing was not arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2017 NY Slip Op 05778, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT)/HUDSON RIVER (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT)/DISCHARGE, WARM WATER (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY WHICH USES HUDSON RIVER WATER TO COOL MACHINERY AND RETURNS WARM WATER TO THE RIVER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATION UNDER RENEWED PERMITS 3RD DEPT)

/ ,

AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department noted that an agreement to pay commissions is an agreement that can be performed in one year, so an oral agreement to pay commissions is not subject to the statute of frauds:

“An agreement to pay an at-will employee commissions earned during the period of his or her employment is capable of performance within one year and does not violate the [s]tatute of [f]rauds” … . Here, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is not about renewal commissions that accrued after his resignation from WorldClaim … . Rather, plaintiff seeks the payment of commissions that he claims were earned while he was still employed by WorldClaim … . Indeed, the complaint alleged that plaintiff, “[d]uring the period from approximately April 2011 to January 2012, . . . earned $104,525 in commissions from sales, [and] $25,000 in monthly bonuses.” Given that plaintiff was still employed by WorldClaim during this alleged time period, the statute of frauds does not bar plaintiff’s claim for unpaid commissions … . Kieper v The Fusco Group Partners Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05782, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, COMMISSIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMMISSIONS, STATUTE OF FRAUDS,  AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMMISSIONS, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 3RD DEPT)

/ ,

SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined a law firm was properly disqualified from representing mother because an associate at the firm had previously represented father in a case involving the same child:

We … address whether, due to the associate’s former attorney-client relationship with the father and current employment with the law firm, the principal is also precluded from representing the mother. While the principal has apparently never represented the father, “where an attorney working in a law firm is disqualified from undertaking a subsequent representation opposing a former client, all the attorneys in that firm are likewise precluded from such representation” … . Application of this rule creates a rebuttable presumption that the law firm should be disqualified … . To that end, “[a] court must examine the circumstances of the particular case and, if it is not clear as a matter of law that disqualification of the entire firm is required, the firm should be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption” … . The presumption may be rebutted by proof that “any information acquired by the disqualified lawyer [i.e., the associate] is unlikely to be significant or material in the [subject] litigation” and by evidence that the law firm screened the associate from receipt and dissemination of information subject to the attorney-client privilege … . * * *

We are mindful here that “[d]oubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification”… , and that “disqualification avoids any suggestion of impropriety and preserves [the client’s] expectation of loyalty” … . Under these facts, we are unpersuaded by the principal’s assertion that a sufficient firewall exists to separate his work on behalf of the mother from the associate so as to screen her from the receipt of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege in this small, informal law office environment. As the principal has not rebutted the presumption that all attorneys in his law firm are disqualified from representing the mother, the father’s motion was properly granted, and Family Court’s order will not be disturbed. Matter of Yeomans v Gaska, 2017 NY Slip Op 05786, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT)

/ ,

ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined abuse findings were supported by substantial evidence, which was entirely hearsay. The court explained how hearsay is evaluated in the context of a ruling by an administrative agency, here the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Petitioner is an employee of the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities and was accused of abusing a service recipient. It was alleged petitioner held the service recipient down while another employee, Roberts, kicked her:

Petitioner contends that hearsay evidence cannot prevail over credible sworn testimony adduced at an administrative hearing. However, it is well established that “an administrative determination may be based entirely upon hearsay evidence provided such evidence is sufficiently relevant and probative or sufficiently reliable and is not otherwise seriously controverted” … . In addition, an administrative determination may be based entirely on such hearsay evidence even where there is contrary sworn testimony … .

Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Justice Center’s final determination that petitioner engaged in conduct constituting category three abuse. In interviews conducted by an investigator, three eyewitnesses to the incident — two residents of the unit and Monica Sutton, a service provider — made consistent statements about the material facts of the incident, specifically, that petitioner restrained the service recipient on the floor while she was kicked by Roberts. Although the eyewitness statements received at the hearing were hearsay, there were sufficient indicia of their reliability. The accounts of the eyewitnesses, who were interviewed separately, are consistent with each other, and, as noted by the Justice Center, were “unwavering as to the core allegations.” Further, the statements from the residents were obtained in personal interviews conducted only three days after the incident, and, although Sutton’s statement was obtained approximately four months after the incident, it is corroborated by the written report of abuse that she made on the date of the incident. Notably, petitioner and Roberts each testified that Sutton witnessed the incident and, although each denied that Roberts kicked the service recipient, both admitted that the service recipient fell to the floor, where she grabbed Roberts by the legs, Roberts moved her legs in an effort to free herself, and petitioner touched or held the service recipient by the shoulder when she was on the floor; these admissions are consistent with the eyewitness reports. Accordingly, the hearsay evidence in the record was sufficiently reliable to provide substantial evidence to support the Justice Center’s determination. Matter of Watson v New York State Justice Ctr. for The Protection of People With Special Needs, 2017 NY Slip Op 05780, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY, ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT)/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT)

/

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CONSTITUTE REAL PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE SOLD PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1602 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, in a matter of first impression, determined that development rights constituted real property within the meaning of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1602, but that the sale of the development rights in this case would not be “expedient” and therefore would violate RPAPL 1602. Here three of four siblings wanted to sell the development rights to the family farm in order to preserve it as a farm. One of the siblings, the defendant, objected to the idea. Overruling Supreme Court, the Second Department held that development rights constitute real property which can be sold pursuant to RPAPL 1602. But, because there was no purchaser for the development rights, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the sale was “expedient” within the meaning of the statute:

… [D]evelopment rights, as that term was understood by the parties to this action, are clearly “real property, or a part thereof” (RPAPL 1602). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has held that development rights constitute interests within the metaphorical “bundle of rights” that comprise fee interests in real property (see Seawall Assocs. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 92, 109 …). In Seawall, the Court of Appeals observed that “[t]here can be no question that the development rights which have been totally abrogated by the local law are, standing alone, valuable components of the bundle of rights’ making up their fee interests,” …  Applying the bundle-of-rights metaphor to the case at bar, by seeking court approval to convey away the right to build as many homes as are allowed by zoning and planning regulations, the plaintiffs are seeking to convey those portions of the bundle of rights comprising the maximum development capacity of the property. Moreover, in drafting RPAPL 1602, the Legislature gave courts the authority to compel the mortgage, lease, or sale of “real property, or a part thereof” … , without placing any limitations on which “parts” of the bundle of rights comprising real property are subject to the statute. “Ordinarily, where the Legislature in enacting a statute utilized general terms, and did not, either expressly or by implication, limit their operation, the court will not impose any limitation” … . Hahn v Hagar, 2017 NY Slip Op 05710, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

REAL PROPERTY (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CONSTITUTE REAL PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE SOLD PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1602 2ND DEPT)/DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (REAL PROPERTY, DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CONSTITUTE REAL PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE SOLD PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1602 2ND DEPT)

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have granted. Although plaintiff and defendant alleged defendant’s car was stopped behind  plaintiff’s car before defendant’s car was pushed into plaintiff’s car after defendant’s car was struck from behind by Vitale’s car, Vitale’s affidavit alleged defendant’s car collided with plaintiff’s car before Vitale collided with defendant. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendant was comparatively negligent:

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff driver and the defendant driver. The plaintiff driver testified at his deposition that the vehicle that he was operating had been stopped for a red traffic light for about 30 seconds when the defendants’ vehicle struck it in the rear. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff driver had observed the defendants’ vehicle stop behind his vehicle without touching it. The defendant driver attested that the vehicle that he was operating was stopped four feet behind the plaintiffs’ stopped vehicle when it was struck in the rear by Vitale’s vehicle. As a result, the defendants’ vehicle was propelled forward into the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. Under the circumstances, the defendants met their initial burden as the movants by demonstrating, prima facie, that their stopped vehicle was propelled forward into the plaintiffs’ vehicle after their vehicle was struck in the rear by a third vehicle, and that the defendant driver was not at fault in the happening of the accident … .

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, Vitale’s affidavit. Vitale’s account of the accident differed from the parties’ account of the accident, and it raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants’ vehicle struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle before Vitale’s vehicle struck the defendants’ vehicle and whether the defendant driver was comparatively at fault … .Hasan Sharif Williams v Sala, 2017 NY Slip Op 05762, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-END COLLISIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

/

PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant raised a question of fact whether the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger was comparatively negligent. Therefore plaintiff passenger’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . Thus, “a plaintiff has a twofold burden that trial courts must bear in mind when determining motions for summary judgment, because more than one actor may be a proximate cause of a single accident” … . The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the jury to decide … . In rear-end accident cases, just because a plaintiff is a passenger in the lead vehicle, the liability of the rear vehicle is not automatically established. Such a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability “must meet the twofold burden of establishing that he or she was free from comparative fault and was, instead, an innocent passenger, and, separately, that the operator of the rear vehicle was at fault. If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate, prima facie, that the operator of the offending vehicle was at fault, or if triable issues of fact are raised by the defendants in opposition, . . . summary judgment on the issue of liability must be denied, even if the moving plaintiff was an innocent passenger” …

Here, the injured plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the submission of her affidavit which demonstrated that she was not negligent in the happening of the accident, as she was an innocent passenger, and that the actions of the defendant driver, Welna, were the sole proximate cause of the accident… . However, in opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Nicole Ortiz [the lead driver] contributed to the happening of the accident by the submission of Welna’s affidavit, which alleged that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 by stopping abruptly in the intersection to turn left without signaling … . Ortiz v Welna, 2017 NY Slip Op 05744, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (REAR END COLLISIONS, LEAD DRIVER’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO SIGNAL AND SUDDEN STOP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND 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