74 A.D.3d 795 (2010)

902 N.Y.S.2d 152

LUCREZIA VOLPE, Respondent, v. ROBERT LIMONCELLI et al., Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided June 1, 2010.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision" (Klopchin v Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 737 [2007]; see Johnston v Spoto, 47 A.D.3d 888 [2008]; Hakakian v McCabe, 38 A.D.3d 493 [2007]).

The plaintiff sustained her burden of establishing a prima facie case of negligence by proffering her testimony at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h wherein she stated, inter alia, that she was stopped at a red light waiting to make a right turn when her vehicle was struck in the rear by a garbage truck owned by the defendant Town of Oyster Bay and driven by its employee, the defendant Robert Limoncelli (hereinafter the defendant driver). In opposition to the motion, the defendant driver submitted an affidavit in which he alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff had begun to make a permitted right turn on the red light but then abruptly stopped, and he was unable to stop on the "wet roadway." Even according full credit to the defendants' version of the accident, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in light of the circumstances of the accident. "[V]ehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead" (Shamah v Richmond County Ambulance Serv., 279 A.D.2d 564, 565 [2001]; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Levine v Taylor, 268 A.D.2d 566 [2000]; see also David v New York City Bd. of Educ., 19 A.D.3d 639 [2005]; Malone v Morillo, 6 A.D.3d 324 [2004]). Nor is the inference of negligence rebutted by the mere assertion that the defendants' vehicle was unable to stop on the allegedly wet roadway (see Faul v Reilly, 29 A.D.3d 626 [2006]; Pincus v Cohen, 198 A.D.2d 405 [1993]; Schmidt v Edelman, 263 A.D.2d 502, 503 [1999]; Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 A.D.2d 572, 573 [1990]; see also Hart v Town of N. Castle, 305 A.D.2d 543 [2003]; Kosinski v Sayers, 294 A.D.2d 407 [2002]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases