Opinion
12712 Index No. 25805/17 Case No. 2020-00160
12-22-2020
Lorraine CALLAHAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Hussein A. HAJI et al., Defendants–Respondents, Maxine H. Verne, Defendant.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellant. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Harrison (Julia E. Braun of counsel), for Uber Technologies, Inc., respondent. The Zweig Law Firm, P.C., Brooklyn (Jonah S. Zweig of counsel), for Hussein A. Haji and Samina M. Rana, respondents.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellant.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Harrison (Julia E. Braun of counsel), for Uber Technologies, Inc., respondent.
The Zweig Law Firm, P.C., Brooklyn (Jonah S. Zweig of counsel), for Hussein A. Haji and Samina M. Rana, respondents.
Acosta, P.J., Oing, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered May 30, 2019, which granted defendants Hussein A. Haji and Samina M. Rana's (the Haji defendants) and defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber) motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Haji defendants established prima facie that the accident in which the vehicle owned by Rana and operated by Haji was struck in the rear by defendant Maxine H. Verne's vehicle was caused by Verne's negligence. A rear-end collision with another vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the second vehicle (see Figueroa v. Luna, 281 A.D.2d 204, 206, 721 N.Y.S.2d 635 [1st Dept. 2001] ; see also Santana v. Tic-Tak Limo Corp., 106 A.D.3d 572, 966 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2013] ).
In opposition, plaintiff, who was a passenger in the vehicle Haji was driving, failed to raise an issue of fact as to Haji's negligence. The discrepancies in plaintiff's and Haji's recollection of the accident do not go to a material fact. Importantly, it is immaterial whether his vehicle was moving or standing still when Verne's vehicle hit it, because liability could not arise from Haji's simply moving with the traffic (see Corrigan v. Porter Cab Corp., 101 A.D.3d 471, 955 N.Y.S.2d 336 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Profita v. Diaz, 100 A.D.3d 481, 954 N.Y.S.2d 40 [1st Dept. 2012] ; see also Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 [2004] ; Gregory v. National Amusements, Inc. 179 A.D.3d 468, 117 N.Y.S.3d 245 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendants' motions were not premature because plaintiff herself knew the relevant facts concerning the accident. (see Flores v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 599, 600, 888 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2009] ).