Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdepositionnegligenceliabilityappealtestimonymotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantdamagesdepositionnegligenceliabilitytestimonymotionsummary judgmentsustainedmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Beltre v. Kiley
View Case »
Jones v. Mnuchin
View Case »
McGuire v. Nielsen
View Case »
Piledrivers Local Union
View Case »
Hootkins v. Napolitano
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tessel, Inc., Matter of

Facts

The plaintiff was driving on the Gowanus Expressway in Brooklyn when his vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the defendant Michael A. Tessel and operated by the defendant Chris N. Samlan. Following the incident, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the Supreme Court granted. The defendants subsequently appealed this decision.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he alleges he sustained in August 2014 when the vehicle he was driving on the Gowanus Expressway in Brooklyn was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant Michael A. Tessel and operated by the defendant Chris N. Samlan. After joinder of issue and the filing of the note of issue, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Issue

Did the plaintiff establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability in the rear-end collision case?

Did the plaintiff establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability in the rear-end collision case?

Rule

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, but this inference may be rebutted by evidence that the lead vehicle abruptly changed lanes and then slowed down or stopped suddenly.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle ( see Greenidge v United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 153 AD3d 905, 907, 60 NYS3d 421 [2017] ; Nikolic v City-Wide Sewer & Drain Serv. Corp. , 150 AD3d 754, 755, 53 NYS3d 684 [2017] ; Cruz v Finney , 148 AD3d 772, 773, 49 NYS3d 153 [2017] ; Leal v Wolff , 224 AD2d 392, 393, 638 NYS2d 110 [1996]) . However, the inference of negligence may be rebutted by evidence that the accident was caused by the lead vehicle abruptly changing lanes in front of the rear vehicle and then slowing down or coming to a sudden stop ( see Greenidge v United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 153 AD3d at 907 ; Markesinis v Jaquez , 106 AD3d 961, 965 NYS2d 363 [2013] ; Scheker v Brown , 85 AD3d 1007, 925 NYS2d 528 [2011] ).

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because the deposition testimony of the defendant driver indicated that the plaintiff's vehicle changed lanes abruptly in front of the defendants' vehicle and then came to a sudden stop. This testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the negligence of the defendant driver.

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. Although the plaintiff submitted evidence that his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants' vehicle, he also submitted the deposition testimony of the [****2] defendant driver that the plaintiff's vehicle changed lanes abruptly in front of defendants' vehicle and then came to a sudden stop. Under these circumstances, [*761] the plaintiff's submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver was [***3] negligent.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied the motion.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants' opposition papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 NY2d 851, 853, 476 NE2d 642, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]) .

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the appellate court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding the negligence of the defendant driver, which the plaintiff failed to eliminate.

The appellate court reversed the decision, denying the plaintiff's motion and highlighting the existence of triable issues of fact regarding the defendant's negligence.

You must be