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.
Irad RAMADAN and Joyal Greene, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Patricia MARITATO and Angelo D. Maritato, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries they allegedly sustained when a vehicle driven by Irad Ramadan (plaintiff) in which plaintiff Joyal Greene was a passenger was rear-ended by a vehicle owned by defendant Patricia Maritato and driven by Angelo D. Maritato (defendant). Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's negligence. It is undisputed that plaintiffs' vehicle was stopped at the time of the rear-end collision, and thus plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence on the part of defendant (see Herdendorf v. Polino, 43 A.D.3d 1429, 842 N.Y.S.2d 849). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants (see generally Ruzycki v. Baker, 301 A.D.2d 48, 50, 750 N.Y.S.2d 680), however, we conclude that defendants rebutted the presumption of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision and thus raised an issue of fact whether the actions of plaintiff contributed to the accident (see generally id. at 49-50, 750 N.Y.S.2d 680; Heal v. Liszewski, 294 A.D.2d 911, 741 N.Y.S.2d 374). According to defendant's deposition testimony, which was submitted by plaintiffs in support of their motion and by defendants in opposition to the motion, defendant approached a red light and came to a complete stop behind plaintiffs' vehicle prior to the collision. Defendant further testified that, when the light turned green, plaintiffs' vehicle moved forward a few feet before stopping again, at which time defendant's vehicle “tapped” the bumper of plaintiffs' vehicle. The record establishes that the accident occurred early on a Sunday afternoon, and there is no dispute that the traffic was not heavy (cf. Herdendorf, 43 A.D.3d at 1429-1430, 842 N.Y.S.2d 849; Ruzycki, 301 A.D.2d at 50, 750 N.Y.S.2d 680). We thus conclude on the record before us that the court properly denied plaintiffs' motion.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 25, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)