From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Pullafico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2000
272 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued March 10, 2000.

May 3, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated August 4, 1999, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Taller Wizman, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Y. David Taller of counsel), for appellants.

Richard M. Sands, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for respondents.

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes the duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forth with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see, Power v. Hupart, 260 A.D.2d 458; Danza v. Longieliere, 256 A.D.2d 434; Mundo v. City of Yonkers, 249 A.D.2d 522).

In this case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the individual defendant failed to maintain a safe distance and whether the plaintiffs' vehicle stopped suddenly, thereby contributing to the accident (see, Migdol v. Striker, 215 A.D.2d 358; Tann v. Herlands, 224 A.D.2d 230; DeCosmo v. Hulse, 204 A.D.2d 953). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martin v. Pullafico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2000
272 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Martin v. Pullafico

Case Details

Full title:AGNES MARTIN, et al., appellants, v. FRANK PULLAFICO, et al., respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 3, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 891

Citing Cases

Chepel v. Meyers

In this case, the issue of negligence was properly a question of fact for the jury to determine (see e.g.…

Wise v. Brooks

The defendant correctly argues that a non-negligent explanation maybe made out, in some circumstances, by…