From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krouser v. Ortiz

Supreme Court, Dutchess County
Mar 11, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 33149 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

Opinion

Index 2014/50889

03-11-2016

JENNIFER KROUSER, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER ORTIZ and MONIQUE ORTIZ, Defendants.

George A. Kohl, Esq, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP Attorney for Plaintiff Grogan & Souto Attorneys for Defendants


Unpublished Opinion

George A. Kohl, Esq, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP Attorney for Plaintiff

Grogan & Souto Attorneys for Defendants

DECISION & ORDER

Christine A. Sproat, Judge

The unopposed motion by plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for the happening of this motor vehicle accident is. granted.

The Court has reviewed the Motion, Affirmation of George A. Kohl, II, Exhibits A-G, and the Affidavit of Service. Plaintiff has established that there are no triable issues of fact on the issue of liability in this rear end collision.". Plaintiff was stopped at a stop light and was hit the rear by the defendant Alexander Ortiz. The defendant has failed to establish anon-negligent explanation for hitting the rear of plaintiff s vehicle with a water bottle rolling from the back seat to where the foot pedal was. "A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence [by prbviding] a non-negligent explanation for the collision." (Katz v. Masada II Car and Limo Services, Inc., 43 A.D.3d 876 (2nd Dept, 2007) citing Niyazov v. Bradford, 13 A.D.3d 501, 786 N.Y.S.2d 582; Russ v. Investech Sec, 6 A.D.3d 602, 775 N.Y.S.2d 867; Vecchio v. Hildebrand, 304 A.D.2d 749, 750, 758 N.Y.S.2d 666; McGregor v. Manzo, 295 A.D.2d 487, 744 N.Y.S.2d 467.) The fact that plaintiff was stopped for traffic does not provide defendant driver with an adequate non-negligent explanation for rear-ending plaintiff. As plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case that i defendant alone isliable for the accident, it is incumbent upon defendant to raise a triable issue of fact in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment. (See, CPLR 3212(b))

This case is adjourned to December 2, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. for jury selection.

Submit Judgment.

So Ordered.


Summaries of

Krouser v. Ortiz

Supreme Court, Dutchess County
Mar 11, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 33149 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)
Case details for

Krouser v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:JENNIFER KROUSER, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER ORTIZ and MONIQUE ORTIZ…

Court:Supreme Court, Dutchess County

Date published: Mar 11, 2016

Citations

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 33149 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)