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.
Briana FOTI, etc., et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. FLEETWOOD RIDE, INC., et al., appellants, City of Mount Vernon, et al., defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Fleetwood Ride, Inc., and Anthony Frimpong appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 22, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Hughes v. Cai, 55 A.D.3d 675, 866 N.Y.S.2d 253; Arias v. Rosario, 52 A.D.3d 551, 860 N.Y.S.2d 168; Harrington v. Kern, 52 A.D.3d 473, 859 N.Y.S.2d 480; Delayhaye v. Caledonia Limo & Car Serv. Inc., 49 A.D.3d 588, 856 N.Y.S.2d 142; Klopchin v. Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311). “One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision is a sudden stop of the lead vehicle” (Chepel v. Meyers, 306 A.D.2d 235, 762 N.Y.S.2d 95; see Klopchin v. Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the appellants submitted deposition testimony which demonstrated that their stopped vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated, respectively, by the defendants City of Mount Vernon and Lowell E. Anderson. However, the deposition testimony upon which the appellants relied also indicated that their vehicle came to an abrupt stop in the middle of the roadway after the driver was informed that he was headed in the wrong direction. Under these circumstances, there is an issue of fact as to whether the negligent operation of the appellants' vehicle caused or contributed to the accident (see Boockvor v. Fischer, 56 A.D.3d 405, 866 N.Y.S.2d 767; Delayhaye v. Caledonia Limo & Car Service, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 588, 856 N.Y.S.2d 142; Klopchin v. Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311; Morrison v. Montzoutsos, 40 A.D.3d 717, 835 N.Y.S.2d 713; Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 390, 783 N.Y.S.2d 832).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 16, 2008
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)