From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Earl v. Hill

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2021
200 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

14850 Index No. 25979/18E Case No. 2020–02913

12-14-2021

Thomas EARL, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Romar HILL, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Traflet & Fabian, New York (Stephen G. Traflet of counsel), for appellants. Khavinson & Associates, PC, New York (Paul Cordella of counsel), for respondent.


Traflet & Fabian, New York (Stephen G. Traflet of counsel), for appellants.

Khavinson & Associates, PC, New York (Paul Cordella of counsel), for respondent.

Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered on or about May 26, 2020, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established defendants’ negligence prima facie by showing that his vehicle was struck in the rear by defendants’ vehicle when he stopped in an intersection, and in opposition, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Francisco v. Schoepfer, 30 A.D.3d 275, 817 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2006] ). Defendants contend that plaintiff's vehicle stopped abruptly for no apparent reason. However, drivers are expected to maintain a reasonable distance between their vehicles and vehicles ahead of them so as to avoid colliding with stopped vehicles ( id. ). Moreover, defendant driver could not reasonably have anticipated an unimpeded flow of traffic at the intersection.


Summaries of

Earl v. Hill

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2021
200 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Earl v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:Thomas EARL, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Romar HILL, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 14, 2021

Citations

200 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
155 N.Y.S.3d 314