From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sekuler v. Limnos Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 2, 1999
264 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 2, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the offending vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on that operator ( see, Bando-Twomey v. Richheimer, 229 A.D.2d 554, 555; Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392, 393; Benyarko v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 A.D.2d 572, 573).

The defendant Hamed Dosso was not negligent in applying his brakes when the drivers of the cars in front of him applied their brakes. Accordingly, the explanation of the defendant Mohammed A. Hossain that he hit the rear of Dosso's vehicle because Dosso stopped short was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment ( see, Escobar v. Rodriguez, 243 A.D.2d 676; Bando-Twomey v. Richheimer, supra, at 555; Leal v. Wolff, supra, at 393-394).

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sekuler v. Limnos Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 2, 1999
264 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Sekuler v. Limnos Taxi, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:YLISSA SEKULER, Plaintiff, v. LIMNOS TAXI, INC., et al., Appellants, and…

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

Date published: Aug 2, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 100

Citing Cases

Snorac, Inc. v. Charles

A presumption of negligence may be drawn from certain facts. For instance, a "rear-end collision with a…

Morrow v. Schoenfeld

It is well-settled that where a vehicle is lawfully stopped, there is a duty imposed upon the operators of…