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.
Lincoln Davis, respondent, v. Jose Rodriguez, et al., appellants.
Argued—November 14, 2025
DECISION & ORDER
A/
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aaron D. Maslow, J.), dated June 21, 2024. The order denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained when the electric bike he was riding collided with the defendants' vehicle. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the plaintiff was negligent in striking their vehicle, which was attempting to make a right turn into the driveway of a Dunkin' Donuts establishment, in the rear. In an order dated June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion. The defendants appeal.
In an accident involving a rear-end collision, the frontmost driver has the duty ‘not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision’ ” (Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 64 AD3d 53, 59–60, quoting Gaeta v. Carter, 6 AD3d 576; see Trinidad v. Llapa, 231 AD3d 1183). Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant driver, which presented divergent accounts of the facts surrounding the accident. In light of the parties' conflicting accounts regarding the happening of the accident, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver was not at fault in the happening of the accident (see generally Lugo v. Mercurio, 240 AD3d 769; Baab v. HP, Inc., 211 AD3d 783). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853).
CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2024–09936
Decided: May 27, 2026
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)