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.
William J. MASCHKA, respondent, v. Frank E. NEWMAN, appellant (and a third party action).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered March 26, 1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant, Frank E. Newman, testified before trial that he was stopped on Sound Avenue in Riverhead, anticipating making a left-hand turn into a garden nursery, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff's wife, the third-party defendant, Patricia A. Maschka, in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The parties all concurred in their deposition testimony that the Newman vehicle was stopped at the time of impact. However, the plaintiff and the third-party defendant adduced evidence in admissible form tending to show that the Newman vehicle had stopped suddenly without warning, and without giving any signal indicating an intent to make a left turn.
It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Danza v. Longieliere, 256 A.D.2d 434, 681 N.Y.S.2d 603; Hurley v. Cavitolo, 239 A.D.2d 559, 658 N.Y.S.2d 90; Niemiec v. Jones, 237 A.D.2d 267, 654 N.Y.S.2d 163; Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583, 613 N.Y.S.2d 417). However, a “driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to keep proper control of that vehicle, and to not stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision” (Niemiec v. Jones, supra, at 268, 654 N.Y.S.2d 163). Under the circumstances of this case, there exist issues of fact concerning whether the defendant contributed to the accident by making a sudden stop and failing to give proper signals in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (see, Galitsis-Orengo v. M.C.L. § Imports, 251 A.D.2d 285, 674 N.Y.S.2d 58; Crowley v. Acampora, 144 A.D.2d 330, 533 N.Y.S.2d 783).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: June 28, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)