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.
Israel ELIHU, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Mireille NICOLEAU, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about August 6, 2018, which granted plaintiffs' separate motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against plaintiff Israel Elihu, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining and deciding plaintiffs' successive motions for summary judgment. The motions were made on the basis of new evidence (see Brown Harris Stevens Westhampton LLC v. Gerber, 107 A.D.3d 526, 968 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2013]; cf. Maggio v. 24 W. 57 APF, LLC, 134 A.D.3d 621, 625–626, 24 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2015] ). In addition, they enhanced judicial efficiency, since they relieved the court and the movants of the burden of a plenary trial (see Landmark Capital Invs., Inc. v. Li–Shan Wang, 94 A.D.3d 418, 419, 941 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept. 2012]; Varsity Tr. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 300 A.D.2d 38, 39, 752 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept. 2002] ).
The court also properly awarded plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and correctly dismissed defendants' counterclaim against plaintiff Israel Elihu. Plaintiffs met their prima facie burden by demonstrating that they were stopped or stopping in stop go traffic when they were rear-ended by the defendants' vehicle (see e.g. Bajrami v. Twinkle Cab Corp., 147 A.D.3d 649, 46 N.Y.S.3d 879 [1st Dept. 2017]; Chowdhury v. Matos, 118 A.D.3d 488, 987 N.Y.S.2d 132 [1st Dept. 2014]; Cartagena v. Martinez, 112 A.D.3d 521, 976 N.Y.S.2d 662 [1st Dept. 2013]; Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 271, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1st Dept. 1999] ). Defendants' allegation that plaintiffs' vehicle stopped suddenly in stop-and-go traffic is not a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the accident, and therefore fails to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition (see e.g. Miller v. DeSouza, 165 A.D.3d 550, 550, 89 N.Y.S.3d 79 [1st Dept. 2018]; Bajrami, 147 A.D.3d at 649, 46 N.Y.S.3d 879; Chowdhury, 118 A.D.3d at 488, 987 N.Y.S.2d 132; Johnson, 261 A.D.2d at 271, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545).
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.
Docket No: 9685
Decided: June 20, 2019
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)