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.
Bohomme MORISSAINT, et al., plaintiffs, v. RAEMAR CORP., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants; Harl Prescod, et al., third-party defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated March 25, 1999, which granted the respective motions of the third-party defendants for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The instant action arose from a motor vehicle accident involving four vehicles in a chain-reaction collision. The respondents, who are the third-party defendants, owned or operated the first and second cars in the chain and moved for summary judgment dismissing the the third-party complaint. The respondents' affidavits submitted in support of their respective motions stated that they were stopped at a light when they were hit from behind. Consequently, the respondents established a prima facie case of liability with respect to the appellants, the owner and operator of the moving vehicle. The appellants failed to submit a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision to rebut the inference of negligence (see, Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392, 638 N.Y.S.2d 110; Parise v. Meltzer, 204 A.D.2d 295, 611 N.Y.S.2d 291; see also, Artis v. Jamaica Buses, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 511, 693 N.Y.S.2d 607; Pares v. La Prade, 266 A.D.2d 852, 698 N.Y.S.2d 213). The affidavit of the appellants' attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts, together with an unsworn accident report signed by the appellant operator were insufficient to defeat the motions for summary judgment (see, Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545).
We reject the appellants' argument that summary judgment was granted prematurely. The belief that additional discovery might reveal something helpful to their case does not provide a basis pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) for postponing a determination of summary judgment (see, Cooper v. Milton Paper Co., 258 A.D.2d 614, 683 N.Y.S.2d 911).
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: April 17, 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)