From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Falcone v. Dorius

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 26, 2018
160 A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

6372 Index 160577/15

04-26-2018

Charmaine FALCONE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Claude DORIUS, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Veruskha Santana, Defendant.

Diamond & Diamond, LLC, Brooklyn (Stuart Diamond of counsel), for appellant. Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Claude Dorius and Surrey Cab Corp., respondents. Law Offices of Richard A. Reinstein, P.C., Brooklyn (Robert J. Adams, Jr. of counsel), for Jaekyu A. Kim and David Mashkabov, respondents.


Diamond & Diamond, LLC, Brooklyn (Stuart Diamond of counsel), for appellant.

Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Claude Dorius and Surrey Cab Corp., respondents.

Law Offices of Richard A. Reinstein, P.C., Brooklyn (Robert J. Adams, Jr. of counsel), for Jaekyu A. Kim and David Mashkabov, respondents.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Andrias, Oing, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered September 1, 2017, which granted defendants-respondents' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The unrefuted evidence establishes that defendants Claude Dorius and Jaekyu A. Kim, operating taxis owned by defendants Surrey Cab Corp. and David Mashkabov, respectively, were lawfully double-parked, discharging passengers, when a car allegedly driven by defendant Veruskha Santana collided with the rear of Kim's car, which caused Kim's car to collide with Dorius's car as plaintiff was preparing to exit it. The fact that the taxis were rear-ended while stopped is prima facie evidence that their drivers were not negligent ( Profita v. Diaz, 100 A.D.3d 481, 954 N.Y.S.2d 40 [1st Dept. 2012] ; see also Rules and Regulations of City of N.Y. Department of Transportation [34 RCNY] § 4–11[d] ). Plaintiff failed to offer a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-ending of Kim's car that raises an issue of fact as to the taxi drivers' negligence (see Santana v. Tic–Tak Limo Corp., 106 A.D.3d 572, 573–574, 966 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Falcone v. Dorius

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 26, 2018
160 A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Falcone v. Dorius

Case Details

Full title:Charmaine FALCONE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Claude DORIUS, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2018

Citations

160 A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 2884
72 N.Y.S.3d 443

Citing Cases

Tavarez v. Linda Transp. Corp.

The fact that the lead vehicle is stopped when rear-ended is prima facie evidence that its driver was not…

Saduzy v. Mazumder

The sudden stop of the lead vehicle, without more (see Cabrera, supra), "is generally insufficient to rebut…