You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendants pursuant to the terms of the statute … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of an assistant secretary of the loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendants in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the loan servicer did not provide proof of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . Investors Sav. Bank v Salas, 2017 NY Slip Op 05811, 2nd Dept 7-26-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT)

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined a special use permit was properly granted to a golf course seeking permission to host nonmember events. The court explained the different criteria for a special use permit versus a variance:

“Unlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special use permit gives permission to use property that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . The burden of proof on an applicant seeking a special use permit is lighter than that carried by an applicant for a zoning variance … . Once an applicant shows “that the contemplated use is in conformance with the conditions imposed, a special [use] permit or exception must be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for denying it that are supported by substantial evidence” … .

Here, on this record, there was substantial evidence that Hampshire Club, Inc.’s contemplated use comported with the requirements of Village of Mamaroneck Zoning Code … , and there were no reasonable grounds for denying the special use permit. Therefore, the special use permit to host nonmember events at the Country Club should have been granted… . “Where substantial evidence exists, a court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the board, even if such a contrary determination is itself supported by the record” … . Matter of Mamaroneck Coastal Envt. Coalition, Inc. v Board of Appeals of the Vil. of Mamaroneck, 2017 NY Slip Op 05822, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

ZONING (SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT)/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (ZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT)/VARIANCE (ZING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT)

,

ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the mortgage-holder’s motion for a default judgment and order of reference should not have been denied. The 1970 deed for the property named defendant and his mother as husband and wife. Pursuant to 1970 law (which changed in 1975) the erroneous “husband and wife” designation created a tenancy in common with no right of survivorship. Therefore, although defendant was not the sole owner at the time the mortgage loan was made, the mortgage was secured by his interest in the property and that interest was subject to foreclosure:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, while the defendant may not have been the sole owner of the subject property at the time of the loan, he was still able to mortgage the subject property to the extent of his interest therein, since ” [a] mortgage given by one of several parties with an interest in the mortgaged property is not invalid; it gives the mortgagee security, but only up to the interest of the mortgagor'” … . “[T]here is nothing in New York law that prevents one of the co-owners from mortgaging or making an effective conveyance of his or her own interest in the tenancy. To the contrary, each tenant may sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber his or her rights in the property, subject to the continuing rights of the other” … . John T. Walsh Enters., LLC v Jordan, 2017 NY Slip Op 05813, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

REAL PROPERTY (DEEDS, ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT)/FORECLOSURE (DEEDS,  ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT)/TENANCY IN COMMON (DEEDS, ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT)

,

THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of the cause of plaintiff’s fall down a set of stairs to survive summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged there was inadequate lighting:

The defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiffs could not identify the cause of the injured plaintiff’s fall. “[T]hat a defective or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of an accident can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury”… . Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged inadequate lighting condition for the subject staircase was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s fall… . Such a finding, given the eyewitness account of the circumstances surrounding the fall and the injured plaintiff’s own statement just before the fall, warning his companions to “watch out, it is dark, you cannot see,” would be based on logical inferences, not speculation … . Pajovic v 94-06 34th Rd. Realty Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05831, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the golf-course sprinkler-valve-hole, which caused plaintiff’s decedent to trip and fall, was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course, thereby overcoming the assumption of risk doctrine. Supreme Court should not have excluded the photographs of the area where plaintiff fell. Contrary to Supreme Court’s reasoning, the person who authenticated the photographs was a not a notice witness who should have been named prior to the filing of the note of issue:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject condition was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course … In this regard, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting the affidavits and photographic evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion. Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to identify John Flower as a notice witness prior to filing the note of issue. The disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 include the obligation to disclose the names of witnesses “if they are material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action” … . Here, Flower did not possess information material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. In his affidavit, Flower merely authenticated certain photographs, most of which had been submitted by the decedent with his notice of claim prior to his death. Consequently, the court should not have rejected Flower’s affidavit and the attendant photographs on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to identify Flower as a notice witness prior to the filing of the note of issue. As a related matter, the court improperly rejected the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert on the ground that he relied upon the photographs. Further, the court should not have rejected the two remaining affidavits from individuals who were disclosed to the defendant prior to the filing of the note of issue. MacIsaac v Nassau County, 2017 NY Slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (GOLF, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/GOLF (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/NOTICE WITNESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)

PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant had actual or or constructive notice of the black ice which caused plaintiff to fall. There was precipitation earlier on the day plaintiff fell:

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the black ice that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall developed as a result of precipitation that fell on the day of the accident, and that the defendant did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the existence of the black ice… . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly considered her deposition transcript in determining the motion … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the black ice was the product of a prior storm … . Vozzo v Fairfield Westlake Sq., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05868, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

,

THE DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS ARE NOT ARBITRABLE TOPICS, ARBITRATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AFFORDING DISCRETION TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the disciplining and suspension of  students were not arbitrable topics because there is a public policy affording the school district discretion in those areas:

In determining whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable, a court must first determine whether ” there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance'”… . If there is no prohibition against arbitration, the court must examine the parties’ collective bargaining agreement to determine “whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute”…

Here, the appellant demanded arbitration to compel the petitioner, the Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District, to implement certain measures regarding the discipline and suspension of students. Since New York’s Education Law grants discretion to boards of education to implement disciplinary rules and regulations in schools … , such demands are nonarbitrable on public policy grounds … . Matter of Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist. v Newburgh Teachers’ Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 05817, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ARBITRATION, THE DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS ARE NOT ARBITRABLE TOPICS, ARBITRATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AFFORDING DISCRETION TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2ND DEPT)/ARBITRATION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THE DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS ARE NOT ARBITRABLE TOPICS, ARBITRATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AFFORDING DISCRETION TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2ND 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