From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vecchio v. Hildebrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-10726

Argued March 4, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Warren Hildebrand appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated October 25, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Meiling C. Chen which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim asserted by him against her, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment against him on the issue of liability.

Robert P. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellant.

Napoli, Kaiser Bern, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

After the defendant Meiling C. Chen and the plaintiff, respectively, established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant Warren Hildebrand failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A rear-end collision is sufficient to create a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the offending vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator to explain how the accident occurred (see Levine v. Taylor, 268 A.D.2d 566; Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583). If the operator of the offending vehicle cannot come forward with evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the drivers of the lead vehicles may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law. A claim that the drivers suddenly stopped is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence (see Dileo v. Greenstein, 281 A.D.2d 586; Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392; Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833).

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vecchio v. Hildebrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Vecchio v. Hildebrand

Case Details

Full title:JOHN M. VECCHIO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WARREN HILDEBRAND, Appellant…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

Vavoulis v. Adler

This case arises from an automobile accident involving three vehicles. It is undisputed that the plaintiff…

Pehr v. Staiano

This is because the operator of the offending vehicle is in the best position to explain whether the…