Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Calvin CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jajaira F. RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants, Youngsoo S. Lee, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of a three-car collision, granted the cross motion of defendants Youngsoo S. Lee and Alamo Financing, L.P. (Alamo) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is undisputed that plaintiffs were in the front vehicle when the middle vehicle, owned by Alamo and operated by Lee, struck plaintiffs' vehicle in the rear after having been struck in the rear by the third car, driven by defendant Rodriguez. In a chain-reaction collision, as here, responsibility presumptively rests with the rearmost driver, Rodriguez (see Mustafaj v. Driscoll, 5 A.D.3d 138, 773 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2004] ). The police accident report includes a statement apparently made by defendant Rodriguez. This statement, which is the sole support for plaintiffs' contention that they raised a triable issue as to Lee's negligence, is hearsay when offered against defendants Alamo and Lee by plaintiffs, and thus was insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion (see Bates v. Yasin, 13 A.D.3d 474, 788 N.Y.S.2d 397 [2004]; Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car & Courier Serv., 301 A.D.2d 392, 396, 753 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2003], lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 100 N.Y.2d 636, 769 N.Y.S.2d 196, 801 N.E.2d 417 [2003] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 11, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)