REZZA v. CHEN (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), dated September 14, 2023.  The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A vehicle operated by the defendant Xiao B. Chen (hereinafter the defendant driver) and owned by the defendant Vector Port Service, Inc., came into contact with the rear of a vehicle operated by the plaintiff.  The accident occurred on the eastbound side of the Verrazzano–Narrows Bridge.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries.  The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, contending that the defendant driver was negligent in coming into contact with the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle.  The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” (Yearwood v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.3d 843, 844–845, 210 N.Y.S.3d 489 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Martin v. PTM Mgt. Corp., 214 A.D.3d 782, 782–783, 185 N.Y.S.3d 247).  “A nonnegligent explanation may include that a vehicle made a sudden lane change in front of a defendant's vehicle, forcing the defendant to stop suddenly” (Despinos–Cadet v. Stein, 209 A.D.3d 978, 980, 177 N.Y.S.3d 320 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Flood v. Fillas, 190 A.D.3d 828, 829, 136 N.Y.S.3d 767).

Here, in support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, transcripts of his and the defendant driver's depositions, which presented conflicting evidence as to how the accident occurred.  Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants as the non-moving parties, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for coming into contact with the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle (see Balanta v. Guo Lin Wu, 220 A.D.3d 720, 197 N.Y.S.3d 545;  Cruz v. Valentine Packaging Corp., 167 A.D.3d 707, 708, 89 N.Y.S.3d 316;  Merino v. Tessel, 166 A.D.3d 760, 760–761, 87 N.Y.S.3d 554).  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, any inconsistencies in the defendant driver's deposition testimony raised an issue of credibility that must be resolved by the factfinder (see Cruz v. Valentine Packaging Corp., 167 A.D.3d at 709, 89 N.Y.S.3d 316).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.