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.
Francesca ROSA, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COLONIAL TRANSIT, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Ray's School Trans. Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Ray's School Trans. Co., Inc., Richard K. Wilkerson, and Sunny Side School Transportation Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated August 6, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment. Although a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Martin v. Pullafico, 272 A.D.2d 305, 707 N.Y.S.2d 891; Mundo v. City of Yonkers, 249 A.D.2d 522, 672 N.Y.S.2d 128; Migdol v. Striker, 215 A.D.2d 358, 626 N.Y.S.2d 963), a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the driver of the stopped bus, the appellant Richard K. Wilkerson, contributed to the accident by making a sudden stop (see, Gildersleeve v. Leo, 274 A.D.2d 547, 712 N.Y.S.2d 399; Maschka v. Newman, 262 A.D.2d 615, 692 N.Y.S.2d 472; Mundo v. City of Yonkers, supra; Migdol v. Striker, supra). Furthermore, an award of summary judgment would be inappropriate in this case since Wilkerson has not appeared for court-ordered examinations before trial, thereby depriving the plaintiffs and codefendants of an opportunity to obtain evidence pertinent to the cause of the accident (see, CPLR 3212[f]; Hoxha v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 379, 696 N.Y.S.2d 850; Lantigua v. Mallick, 263 A.D.2d 467, 693 N.Y.S.2d 619; Campbell v. City of New York, 220 A.D.2d 476, 631 N.Y.S.2d 932; Soto v. City of Long Beach, 197 A.D.2d 615, 602 N.Y.S.2d 691).
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: October 30, 2000
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)