Domanova v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Massa v. Simpson

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35071 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and to maintain control of his vehicle and use reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Gallo v. Jairath, 122 A.D.3d 795, 996 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2d Dept 2014]; Cajas-Romero v. Ward, 106 A.D.3d 850, 965 N.Y.S.2d 559 [2d Dept 2013]; Nsiah-Ababio v. Hunter, 78 A.D.3d 672, 913 N.Y.S.2d 659 [2d Dept 2010]). A driver is negligent in failing to see that which under the facts and circumstances he should have seen by the proper use of his senses (see Barbieri v. Vokoun, 72 A.D.3d 853, 900 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2d Dept.2010]; Domanova v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 633, 838 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept. 2007]; Lester v Jolicofur et al., 120 A.D.2d 574; 502 N.Y.S.2d 61 [2d Dept 1986]). The occurrence of a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicles creates a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to come forward with a non- negligent explanation for the collision (Montalvo v. Cedeno, 170 A.D.3d 1166, 96 N.Y.S.3d 638 [2d Dept. 2019]; McLaughlin v. Lunn, 137 A.D.3d 757, 26 N.Y.S.3d 338 [2d Dept 2016]; Cheow v. Cheng Lin Jin, 121 A.D.3d 1058, 995 N.Y.S.2d 186 [2d Dept 2014]; Perez v Roberts, 91 A.D.3d 620, 936 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2d Dept 2012]; Volpe v. Limoncelli, 74 A.D.3d 795, 902 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2d Dept 2010]; Ramirez v. Konstanzer, 61 A.D.3d 837, 878 N.Y.S.2d 381 [2d Dept 2009]). This burden is placed on the driver of the rear vehicle because he is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead,

  2. Krimendahl v. Hurley

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 32482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a), when official markings are in place indicating those portions of any highway where overtaking and passing or driving to the left of such markings would be especially hazardous, "'no driver of a vehicle proceeding along such highway shall at any time drive on the left side of such markings." While every driver also has a duty to see that which should be seen through the proper use of his or her senses and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with another vehicle (see Weigand v United Traction Co.,221 NY 39, 116 NE 345 [1917]; Zweeres v Materi, 94 AD3d 1111, 942 NYS2d 625 [2d Dept 2012]; Domanova v State of New York,41 AD3d 633, 838 NYS2d 644 [2d Dept 2007]), a driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile going in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic (Sullivan v Mandato,58 AD3d 714, 873 NYS2d 96 ["2d Dept 2009]). Such conduct constitutes negligence as a matter of law unless justified by an emergency situation which is not created by the driver (DiSiena v Giammarino,72 AD3d 873, 898 NYS2d 664 [2d Dept 2010]).