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.
Sam KATZ, Respondent, v. Mendel KLAGSBRUN, et al., Defendant, Harold Blatter, Appellant.
(Action No. 1). Mendel Klagsbrun, et al., Respondents, v. Brian S. McDermott, Defendant, Harold Blatter, Appellant. (Action No. 2).
In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Harold Blatter appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 15, 2002, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in both actions insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaints are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the actions against the remaining defendants are severed.
These two actions arise from a multi-car accident that occurred on July 24, 1998, on the Palisades Parkway. Harold Blatter (hereinafter the defendant) is named as a defendant in both actions because this three-car collision occurred after he stopped his car in the right travel lane of the roadway.
In every version of the accident, the defendant's car is stopped, is not hit by any other car, and the two cars closest to it (one in the same lane and one in the lane to its left), are able to stop safely at least a few feet away from it. Although the parties do not agree which car was the third one, there is no dispute that it was the third vehicle on the scene that did not stop in time. The third vehicle hit either one or both of the two cars that had stopped closer to the defendant's car. Clearly, the accident was caused by the driver of this third vehicle, who for some negligent or non-negligent reason failed to stop in time, and not by the appellant's car, the presence of which merely furnished the occasion for the accident. Where a party merely furnishes the occasion for an accident, but does not cause it, liability may not be imposed against him or her (see e.g. Williams v. Envelope Transit Corp., 186 A.D.2d 797, 589 N.Y.S.2d 345; Rogers v. Huggins, 106 A.D.2d 621, 483 N.Y.S.2d 110).
Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaints insofar as asserted against him.
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: November 04, 2002
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)