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.
Williams Nana NSIAH-ABABIO, appellant, v. Charles D. HUNTER, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated October 2, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when the motor vehicle he was operating was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant B.O. Astra Management Corp. and operated by the defendant Charles D. Hunter. Following joinder of issue and some pretrial discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
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 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]; see generally Pawlukiewicz v. Boisson, 275 A.D.2d 446, 447; Maxwell v. Lobenberg, 227 A.D.2d 598, 598-599). Here, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his own deposition testimony regarding the circumstances of the accident and his proper operation of his vehicle, as well as the defendant Hunter's admission, made immediately following the accident and memorialized in a police accident report (see Nieves v. JHH Transp., LLC, 40 AD3d 1060), that his vehicle struck the plaintiff's vehicle in the rear. In opposition to this prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). In this regard, the defendants' contention that the motion should have been denied pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) as premature is unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
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 03, 2010
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)