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.
Fedirnan Obando, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dane Espeut et al., Defendants, Alex Morera et al., Defendants–Appellants.
.2022–00459 2022–04272
Morris Duffy Alonso Faley & Pitcoff, New York (Robert S. Whitbeck, Iryna S. Krauchanka and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for appellants.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria (Kurt Doiron of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lisa Headley, J.), entered on or about January 18, 2022, which denied the motion of defendants Alex Morera and Paz Giovanni (together, the Morera defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 24, 2022, which denied Morera and Giovanni's motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a two-car collision while he was a passenger in a car driven by Morera and owned by Giovanni. According to plaintiff, defendant Dan Espeut, who was driving behind the Morera defendants' car, rear-ended the Morera defendants' car.
It is well-settled law that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence by the driver of the rear vehicle, and imposes a duty on the driver of the rear vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident (Kalair v. Fajerman, 202 AD3d 625, 626 [1st Dept 2022]; Urena v. GVC Ltd., 160 AD3d 467, 467 [1st Dept 2018] ). Here, the Morera defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting Morera's affidavit, in which he averred that he was driving straight and gradually applying his brakes because there was traffic ahead of him, and that as he was doing so, the Espeut vehicle rear-ended his vehicle (see Rodriguez v. Sharma, 178 AD3d 508, 508–509 [1st Dept 2019] ).
In opposition, neither plaintiff nor the other defendants raised a triable issue of fact. Espeut's affidavit, in which he averred that Morera stopped short in front of him after entering his lane of traffic, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Chame v. Kronen, 150 AD3d 622, 622 [1st Dept 2017]; Corrigan v. Porter Cab Corp., 101 AD3d 471, 471–472 [1st Dept 2012] ). Moreover, Espeut had the obligation to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles, which, as the record evidence makes clear, he failed to do (see id. at 472; Dattilo v. Best Transp. Inc., 79 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2010]; Soto–Maroquin v. Mellet, 63 AD3d 449, 449–450 [1st Dept 2009] ).
In view of the foregoing, the Morera defendants' appeal from denial of their renewed motion for summary judgment is academic.
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: 17423-17424
Decided: March 02, 2023
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)