Abramowicz v. Roberto
Decision Date | 02 October 1995 |
Citation | 631 N.Y.S.2d 442,220 A.D.2d 374 |
Parties | Joseph ABRAMOWICZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Valpais ROBERTO, et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian, of counsel), for appellants.
Bruce S. Reznick, Brooklyn (Thomas Torto and Lawrence Goodman, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, THOMPSON and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), entered November 23, 1993, which, upon the court directing a verdict in favor of the injured plaintiff on the issue of liability, and upon a jury verdict as to damages, is in favor of the injured plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sum of $150,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
This action arises from an automobile accident in which a tow truck owned by the defendant City of New York and operated by the defendant Roberto Valpais (sued here as Valpais Roberto) struck the rear of the injured plaintiff's van while the latter was stopped for a red traffic light. According to the account of the collision most favorable to the defendants, Valpais testified that due to rainy weather conditions, his visibility was limited and he failed to observe both the van and the red traffic light as he approached them. He further claimed that at a point approximately 50 feet from the intersection, a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction splashed water onto his windshield and temporarily obscured his vision. Valpais stated that he applied his brakes and skidded into the rear of the van. It is undisputed that the impact forced the van through the intersection, onto the sidewalk, and into a nearby building.
A rear-end collision into an automobile stopped for a red light creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, imposing a duty of explanation upon the operator (see, Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583, 613 N.Y.S.2d 417; Starace v. Inner Circle Qonexions, 198 A.D.2d 493, 604 N.Y.S.2d 179; Edney v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 178 A.D.2d 398, 577 N.Y.S.2d 102; Benyarko v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 A.D.2d 572, 556 N.Y.S.2d 761). Moreover, when a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, the driver is bound to maintain a reasonably safe...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Covey v. Simonton
...Dep't 1996); see also Barile v. Lazzarini, 222 A.D.2d 635, 637, 635 N.Y.S.2d 694, 696 (2d Dep't 1995); Abramowicz v. Roberto, 220 A.D.2d 374, 375, 631 N.Y.S.2d 442, 443 (2d Dep't 1995); Guzzardi v. Grotas, 98 A.D.2d at 761, 469 N.Y.S.2d at If, as plaintiffs allege, they can establish that M......
-
Chang Fei Lin v Qin Chen
...See Chepel v. Meyers, 306 A.D.2d 235, at 236, 762 N.Y.S.2d 95 at 97 (2nd Dept. 2003); See also Abramowicz v. Roberto, 220 A.D.2d 374, 375, 631 N.Y.S.2d 442, 443 (2nd Dept. 1995). It is well established that a rear-end collision with a stopped or moving vehicle creates a prima facie case of ......
-
Lee v. Casado
...Tutrani v. County of Suffolk. 64 A.D.3d 53, 59 (2ndDept. 2009); Leal v. Wolff. 224 A.D.2d 392 (2nd Dept. 1996); Abramowicz v. Roberto. 220 A.D.2d 374, 375 (2nd Dept. 1995); Aromando v. City of New York. 220 A.D.2d 617 (2ndDept. 1994); Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service. 109 A.D.......
-
Lagos v. Fucale
...explanation, constitutes negligence as a matter of law. See Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392 (2nd Dept. 1996); Abramowicz v. Roberto, 220 A.D.2d 374, 375 (2nd Dept. 1995); Aromando v. City of New York, 220 A.D.2d 617 (2nd Dept. 1994); Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, 109 A.D.2d ......