Avant v. Cepin Livery Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 June 2010
• Citation: 904 N.Y.S.2d 381,74 A.D.3d 533
• Parties: Natalie AVANT, Plaintiff, v. CEPIN LIVERY CORP., Defendant-Respondent, Ramon DeJesus, Defendant, Charlene Renee Herrera, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

904 N.Y.S.2d 381 74 A.D.3d 533 Natalie AVANT, Plaintiff, v. CEPIN LIVERY CORP., Defendant-Respondent, Ramon DeJesus, Defendant, Charlene Renee Herrera, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. June 10, 2010.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale (Gregory A. Cascino of counsel), for appellants.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondent.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered August 14, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all crossclaims as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them.

Plaintiff was a passenger in the backseat of defendant Cepin Livery Corp.'s vehicle when that vehicle struck the back of appellants' vehicle, which was stopped at a red light, before hitting another car; plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Under the circumstances, summary judgment in favor of appellants is warranted because when such a rear-end collision occurs, the owner and operator of the front vehicle are entitled to summary judgment on liability unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision ( see Mullen v. Rigor, 8 A.D.3d 104, 778 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2004]; Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 271, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1999] ). Here, the opposition failed to provide such a non-negligent explanation ( see Grimes-Carrion v. Carroll, 13 A.D.3d 125, 787 N.Y.S.2d 6 [2004] ).

Contrary to the finding of the motion court, depositions are not needed since the opponents of the motion had personal knowledge of the facts ( cf. CPLR 3212[f] ), and failed to meet their obligation of laying bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( Morgan v. New York Tel., 220 A.D.2d 728, 633 N.Y.S.2d 319 [1995] ).