Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garner v. Chevalier Transportation Corp.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


January 27, 2009

SAMUEL GARNER, APPELLANT,
v.
CHEVALIER TRANSPORTATION CORP., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 15, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, WILLIAM E. McCARTHY and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

(Index No. 33316/06)

DECISION & ORDER

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.

On June 23, 2004, the plaintiff's vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the defendant Chevalier Transportation Corp. and operated by the defendant Jeffery Martin. On his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit in which he stated that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the driver and owner of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty of explanation on its driver (see Johnson v Spoto, 47 AD3d 888, 889). In opposition, the defendants failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Myrie v Atehortua, 275 AD2d 699). Furthermore, contrary to the contention of the defendants, the plaintiff's motion was not premature (see CPLR 3212[f]; Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 737). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

SPOLZINO, J.P., COVELLO, McCARTHY and BELEN, JJ., concur.

20090127

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.