Lourdes Escudero, Plaintiff(s), v. ZACHARY SHELDRICK AMY LAYDEN AMELIA LAYDEN (2026)

The following papers numbered 1 — 4 were read and considered in connection with Defendants LEANNE SHELDRICK and ZACHARY A. SHELDRICK's Notice of Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3212, and dismissing the Complaint and all cross-claims against them on the basis that they did not breach any duty owed to the Plaintiff, LOURDES ESCUDERO, and, therefore, are not the proximate cause of the subject accident, and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just, proper, and equitable:

PAPERS NUMBERS

Notice of Motion (Motion Seq. No. 1)/Affirmation of Terence J. Kemp, Esq./

Exhibit A-H/Word Count Affirmation 1

Affirmation of Melanie S. Schlosser, Esq. in Opposition 2

Affirmation of Zoya Gekman, Esq, in Opposition 3

Affirmation of Terence J. Kemp, Esq. in Reply to Co-Defendants' Opposition/

Exhibit A 4

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff commenced the instant action with the filing of a Summons and Verified Complaint on May 20, 2025. Defendants AMELIA LAYDEN and AMY LAYDEN were served pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(2) on May 29, 2025, by service on JOHN LAYDEN. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 and 3. Plaintiff has failed to include Affidavits of Service as to Defendants LEANNE SHELDRICK and ZACHARY A. SHELDRICK.¹ Nonetheless, on June 17, 2025, Defendants LEANNE and ZACHARY A. SHELDRICK [hereinafter SHELDRICK Defendants] joined issue with the filing of a Verified Answer raising nineteen (19) Affirmative Defenses and one cross-claim against co-Defendants AMY and AMELIA LAYDEN [hereinafter LAYDEN Defendants]. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 6. The LAYDEN Defendants joined issue on June 27, 2025, with the filing of a Verified Answer with eleven (11) Affirmative Defenses and one cross-claim against the SHELDRICK co-Defendants. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 8.

Plaintiff filed a Note of Issue with Jury and Certificate of Readiness on February 26, 2026. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 31. The SHELDRICK Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3212.

FACTS/TESTIMONY

The instant action arises out of a three (3) car motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 28, 2023, between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. on Route 304 at the intersection of Washington Avenue. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 34-35, 37.

Plaintiff Deposition testimony  ²

Plaintiff testified at her examination before trial [hereinafter EBT] that she was driving a Toyota Scion, coming from work in West Nyack, New York traveling to her daughter's home in Ramsey, New Jersey. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 88-90. The Plaintiff testified that as she was approaching the intersection of Route 304 and Washington Road she observed the traffic light turning from yellow to red and she brought her car to stop at the traffic light. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 55-56. Further, Plaintiff stated her vehicle was stopped for a minute or two before the intersection when the accident occurred. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 56. She also testified that there were cars in the lane in front of her car and cars to the left of her car, in the left-hand lane. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 57. The Plaintiff testified that while waiting at the light she felt her vehicle was struck with a heavy impact in the rear driver's side bumper. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 58-60. As a result of the impact, the Plaintiff stated her vehicle was pushed forward while her foot remained on the brake. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 61. Plaintiff stated that as a result of the impact she hit her left hand on the left driver's side window which became swollen, and her neck hurt. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 64-68.

The Plaintiff denied that she exited her car after the accident and spoke with Defendant ZACHARY SHELDRICK or Defendant AMELIA LAYDEN but did recall after prompting that she texted with ZACHARY SHELDRICK, or his mother LEANNE SHELDRICK. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p 72. Plaintiff testified that during her text exchange with LEANNE SHELDRICK she indicated that the vehicle driven by Defendant ZACHARY SHELDRICK had already stopped at the intersection before the accident occurred. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, p. 84.

Defendant ZACHARY SHELDRICK Deposition

Defendant ZACHARY SHELDRICK [hereinafter Z. SHELDRICK] testified that he was driving a 2017 Dodge Challenger registered to his mother LEANNE SHELDRICK [hereinafter L. SHELDRICK] when he was involved in an accident on December 28, 2023, around 6:00 p.m. at an intersection with Route 304 while he was going from work to his home in Pompton Plains, New Jersey. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, p. 13-14. Defendant Z. SHELDRICK also stated that he had left work approximately five (5) minutes before the subject accident and was traveling on Route 304 when he approached the subject intersection and observed the traffic light turning red. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, p. 17-18. According to Defendant Z. SHELDRICK prior to the accident he moved from the left lane to the right lane using his turn signal and then he stopped his vehicle in the right lane due to the red traffic light. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, p. 19-24. Defendant Z. SHELDRICK testified that when he stopped his vehicle at the red light there was another vehicle in front of his vehicle, approximately one (1) car length ahead of him. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, p. 24-25. Defendant Z. SHELDRICK testified that while waiting at the traffic light his vehicle was impacted heavily first in the rear center causing him to swerve to the left and strike the left rear of the car in front of him driven by the Plaintiff with a medium impact. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, p. 26-29.

Defendant AMELIA LAYDEN Deposition

Defendant AMELIA LAYDEN [hereinafter LAYDEN] testified that she was involved in an accident on December 23, 2023, around 6:00 pm to 7:00 p.m. on Route 304 before the intersection with Washington Avenue. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 40, ps. 9, 14. According to Defendant LAYDEN, she was coming from the Palisades Mall on the way to her home at 15 North Pearl River Road. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 40, p. 15. Defendant LAYDEN testified that as she approached the intersection of Route 304 and Washington Avenue, she observed the traffic light to be red and the two vehicles in front of her, that were involved in the accident, were stopped. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 40, p. 22. Further, Defendant LAYDEN testified that she was traveling at about 45 miles per hour when she first observed the subject traffic light. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 40, p. 22. Defendant LAYDEN stated that at the time of the accident she was breaking at a stop at the light, and the front of her vehicle impacted the back of the car in front of her with a heavy impact. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 40., p. 24-25, 38. In addition, Defendant LAYDEN testified that prior to the subject accident she believed that the car in front of her (the blue car) driven by Defendant Z. SHELDRICK was in between the left and right lanes and she believed he was merging, but the vehicle was stopped. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 29-30.

Certified Police Accident Report

The SHELDRICK Defendants submitted the Certified Police Accident Report and according to the summary in the report: Defendant LAYDEN informed the responding officer that the vehicle operated by Defendant Z. SHELDRICK merged into the right lane and as a result she was unable to stop causing her to strike the rear of SHELDRICK's vehicle and causing SHELDRICK's vehicle to strike the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 42. The Certified Police Accident Report contains a diagram demonstrating the narrative description. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 42.

ARGUMENTS/LAW/ANALYSIS

The SHELDRICK Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against them since Defendant AMELIA LAYDEN, who was driving a car owned by her mother Defendant AMY LAYDEN, was the sole proximate cause of the subject three (3) car accident. Relying on the deposition testimony of the parties and the Certified Police Report, which SHELDRICK asserts is admissible as a business record pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4518(c), the SHELDRICK Defendants contend that they have established their prima facie showing entitling them to a judgment in their favor. Specifically, the SHELDRICK Defendants assert that pursuant to New York law -- a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed so as to avoid a collision.

Further, the Defendants contend that a rear end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes prima facie negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle requiring the operator of the rear vehicle to rebut the inference by providing a non-negligent explanation for the accident. The SHELDRICK Defendants also argue that in a chain reaction accident the operator of the middle vehicle can establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were operating the middle vehicle and that vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck in the rear and propelled into the car in front of it.

According to the SHELDRICK Defendants they have established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as the EBT testimony demonstrates that Z. SHELDRICK's vehicle was stopped for five (5) to seven (7) second before it was struck in the rear by Defendant LAYDEN's vehicle and as a result of the rear end strike Z. SHELDRICK's vehicle struck the vehicle in front of his operated by the Plaintiff. The SHELDRICK Defendants note that the certified police report submitted in support of their application corroborates the sworn deposition testimony of all (3) parties in this matter. Finally, the SHELDRICK Defendants note that there has been no evidence presented or testimony in the EBTs that there was a negligent act or omission by Z. SHELDRIVK which caused or contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

In opposition, Defendant LAYDEN contends that Defendant Z. SHELDRICK changed lanes on Route 304 multiple times in the two (2) minutes prior to approaching the traffic light at the subject intersection and as a result he was not fully in the right lane and was stopped in between the left and right lanes at the time of the accident. According to Defendant LAYDEN, the switching of lanes by Defendant Z. SHELDRICK was reckless and erratic. Defendant LAYDEN also relies upon the Certified Police Report and asserts that the narrative portion confirms that Defendant Z. SHELDRICK had merged into the right lane and as a result Defendant LAYDEN was unable to stop causing the subject accident. As a result, Defendant LAYDEN argues that these facts raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant Z. SHELDRICK's action contributed to the subject action.

Plaintiff also contends, in opposition, that the SHELDRICK Defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of eliminating all triable questions of material fact and that Defendant LAYDEN's opposition papers raised issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. The Plaintiff asserts that the Certified Police Report is not admissible since there is no indication that the responding officer witnessed the accident and therefore the contents of the report are inadmissible hearsay that should be disregarded.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff argues that -- if the Court relies upon the statements within the Certified Police Report -- the SHELDRICK Defendants' motion should still be denied since the notes by the responding officer raise triable issues of fact rather than demonstrate SHELDICK's entitlement to judgment. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts the triable issues of fact raised by the notes in the police report are corroborated by Defendant LAYDEN's deposition testimony about Defendant Z. SHELDRICK's vehicle merging between lanes several times before the subject accident. Plaintiff asserts there is conflicting testimony from Defendant Z. SHELDRICK as to when he merged from the left to the right lane before the accident, which is a triable issue of fact that requires credibility determination of the witnesses.

In reply, the SHELDRICK Defendants contend the affirmation of Plaintiff's counsel should be disregarded as the language in her affirmation is not consistent with the requirements in the most recent version of Civil Practice Law and Rules § 2106. Nonetheless, the SHELDRICK Defendants assert that -- even if the Court considers the deficient attorney affirmation -- the Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that the Certified Police Accident Report is admissible and the statements within are party admissions. Further, the SHELDRICK Defendants assert that the cases proffered by Plaintiff in support of her assertion that the Certified Police Report is inadmissible actually pertain to uncertified police reports that were proffered. In addition, the SHELDRICK Defendants argue that a comparison of the statements in the Certified Police Report to the deposition testimony demonstrates consistency, not a triable issue of fact. Finally, the SHELDRICK Defendants contend that the cases submitted by Plaintiff as to the sequence of collisions are also in opposite as they address facts in which the front car felt two (2) separate impacts rather than one (1), as testified by Plaintiff in this action.

"A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident." White v. Adom Rental Transp., Inc., 150 AD3d 938, 939 (2d Dept 2017) citing Boulos v. Lerner- Harrington, 124 AD3d 709 (2d Dept 2015). "[T]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident." Caldwell v. Town of Huntington, 206 AD3d 875, 876 (2d Dept 2022). "Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause." Kalland v. Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC, 84 AD3d 889, 889 (2d Dept 2011); See Lukyanovich v. H.L. Gen. Contrs., Inc., 141 AD3d 693 (2d Dept 2016).

"A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle." Mihalatos v Barnet, 175 AD3d 492, 492-493 [2d Dept 2019] quoting Jimenez v Ramirez. 171 AD3d 902, 903 [2d Dept 2019]; Nicola v Nicolas, 208 AD3d 791, 791-792 [2d Dept 2022]; Montalvo v Cedeno, 170 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2d Dept 2019]. "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, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence." Id at 493 quoting Jimenez v Ramirez, 171 AD3d at 903; Maurice v Donovan, 235 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2025]. Further, "[e]vidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it mya provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation." Williams v Sala, 152 AD3d 729, 729 [2d Dept 2017]. "A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, sudden or unavoidable circumstances." Munoz v Agenus, Inc., 207 AD3d 643, 645 [2d Dept 2022] quoting Drakh v Levin, 123 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2d Dept 2014]. When there is a "chain-collision accident, the defendant/operator owner of the middle vehicle may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle." McPhaul-Guerrier v Leppla, 201 AD3d 920, 922 [2d Dept 2022]; See Morales v Amar, 145 AD3d 1000, 1002 [2d Dept 2016].

At the outset the Court notes that the affirmation language used by Plaintiff's counsel in her affirmation does not comport with the most recent changes to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 2106 and neither does the affirmation of counsel for Defendant LAYDEN. Therefore, neither of the affirmations are in admissible format. Nonetheless, the Appellate Division, Second Department recently noted that "CPLR 2001 permits a court to disregard a party's mistake, omission, defect or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced." Smith v Maines Paper & Food Service, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03466, *2 [2d Dept June 3, 2026].

Here, in response to the opposition submitted by both Defendant LAYDEN and Plaintiff, the SHELDRICK Defendants submitted a reply affirmation which again reaffirmed the basis for their motion for summary judgment and addressed all of the arguments raised in the opposition papers. Therefore, the SHELDRICK Defendants suffered no prejudice as they had the opportunity to address the arguments made in opposition by Defendant LAYDEN and Plaintiff. As such, the Court will consider the arguments raised in both the affirmation of counsel for Defendant LAYDEN and counsel for the Plaintiff.

Turning to the merits, the SHELDRICK Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through Z. SHELDRICK's EBT testimony along with that of Plaintiff and Defendant LAYDEN. Each of the parties testified that the vehicle operated by Z. SHELDRICK was completely stopped at the red traffic light behind the Plaintiff's vehicle when his vehicle was struck in the rear by Defendant LAYDEN's vehicle and propelled into the Plaintiff's vehicle, and thus he was not at fault in the happening of the accident. See Arellano v Richards, 162 AD3d 967, 968 [2d Dept 2018].

Defendant LAYDEN did testify in her EBT and the narrative within the Certified Police Report -- which is admissible and contains admissible hearsay including party admissions (see Yassin v Blackman, 188 AD3d 62 [2d Dept 2020]) -- confirms that Defendant Z. SHELDRICK's vehicle had moved from the left lane to the right lane prior to the subject accident, but was stopped at the red light after the merging of lanes. The alleged triable issue of fact alleged regarding the merging conduct of Defendant Z. SHELDRICK is a red herring, which does not change the consistent testimony that Defendant Z. SHELDRICK's vehicle was stopped at the time of rear impact by Defendant LAYDEN's vehicle.

Whether Defendant Z. SHELDRICK's vehicle was partially or fully in the right lane after merging does not change the fact that all of the parties conceded that the vehicle was stopped for several seconds waiting for the red light prior to the rear impact. See Martin v Copado-Esquivel, 226 AD3d 668, 670 [2d Dept 2024]; See also Wesa v Consolidated Bus Transit, Inc., 248 AD3d 1313, 1315 [2d Dept 2026]. Also, neither Defendant LAYDEN's EBT testimony nor the narrative in the Certified Police Report provide that Defendant LAYDEN had sudden or unavoidable circumstances as a result of Defendant Z. SHELDRICK's merge from the left to right lane such that there was a nonnegligent explanation for the collision rebutting the inference of negligence.

In addition, any allegation as to when the merge occurred is not a triable issue of fact as it is clear from all parties' testimony that the merge was completed and SHELDRICK's vehicle was stopped at the time of the subject accident. The fact that Z. SHELDRICK may have merged from the left to right lane prior to his vehicle stopping in the right lane -- absent any testimony that his conduct altered Defendant LAYDEN's ability to stop timely -- does not raise a triable issue of fact. See Dalrymple v Morocho, 208 AD3d 751, 753 [2d Dept 2022]. Defendant Z. SHELDRICK established, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident.

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant LAYDEN and the Plaintiff have failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact that precludes the granting of summary judgment to the SHELDRICK Defendants in this matter.

In arriving at this decision, the Court has reviewed, evaluated, and considered all the issues framed by these motion papers and the failure of the Court to specifically mention any particular issue in this Decision and Order does not mean that it has not been considered by the Court in light of the appropriate legal authority.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants ZACHARY and LEANNE SHELDRICK's Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion Seq. No. 1) is granted in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the balance of the parties are to appear for a Settlement Conference on JUNE 16, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.

Dated: June 15, 2026

New City, New York

HON. JOHN P. COLLINS, Jr., J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In NYSCEF Plaintiff has filed documents titled "Affirmation/Affidavit of Service — Sheldrick, Leanne and Sheldrick, Zachary A." See NYSCEF Doc. No. 4-5. However, NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 is the Affirmation of Service for Defendants AMELIA and AMY LAYDEN, not the Affidavits for Defendants LEANNE and ZACHARY SHELDRICK. Also, NYSCEF Doc. No. 5 is bill from the Department of Treasury for an IRS Payment for "MDLN Corp, % Aleksandr Uskach," which is not a party to this action.

2.   The deposition testimony of Plaintiff LOURDES ESCUDERO is filed on NYSCEF as Doc. Nos. 37-38 and these documents purport to be Part 1 and Part 2 of the November 13, 2025, deposition. See NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 37-38. However, both documents are the same part of ESCUDERO's deposition, which appears to be the first part, and not the second part. See NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 37-38.

John P. Collins, Jr., J.