Celentano v. Moriarty
| Decision Date | 20 July 2010 |
| Citation | 75 A.D.3d 572,904 N.Y.S.2d 908 |
| Parties | Joann CELENTANO, et al., appellants, v. Catherine MORIARTY, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
DeProspo, Petrizzo & Longo (Steven A. Kimmel, Washingtonville, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants.
Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Daniel E. O'Neill and Cynthia Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated June 1, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision ( see Carman v. Arthur J. Edwards Mason Contr. Co. Inc., 71 A.D.3d 813, 813-814, 897 N.Y.S.2d 191; Franco v. Breceus, 70 A.D.3d 767, 768, 895 N.Y.S.2d 152). Here, the defendant failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. Her assertion that the plaintiffs' vehicle came to a sudden stop in front of her vehicle is not supported by any evidence in the record ( see Farrington v. New York City Tr. Auth., 33 A.D.3d 332, 822 N.Y.S.2d 51). Accordingly, in response to the plaintiffs' prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gutierrez v. Trillium USA, LLC
...and of itself, to provide a nonnegligent explanation ( see Kastritsios v. Marcello, 84 A.D.3d 1174, 923 N.Y.S.2d 863;Celentano v. Moriarty, 75 A.D.3d 572, 904 N.Y.S.2d 908;Franco v. Breceus 70 A.D.3d 767, 895 N.Y.S.2d 152;Mallen v. Su, 67 A.D.3d 974, 975, 890 N.Y.S.2d 79;Ramirez v. Konstanz......
-
Bd. of Educ. of Garrison Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Greek Archdiocese Inst. of St. Basil
...who are not residents of the state, or for children who are privately placed in the child care institution regardless of residency.75 A.D.3d 572 St. Basil urges this Court to interpret article 81 as requiring the plaintiff to bear the costs of educating St. Basil's nonresident, privately pl......
-
Cheow v. Cheng Lin Jin
...actions contributed to the happening of the accident (see Kastritsios v. Marcello, 84 A.D.3d 1174, 923 N.Y.S.2d 863 ; Celentano v. Moriarty, 75 A.D.3d 572, 904 N.Y.S.2d 908 ; Franco v. Breceus, 70 A.D.3d 767, 895 N.Y.S.2d 152 ; Mallen v. Su, 67 A.D.3d 974, 975, 890 N.Y.S.2d 79 ; Hakakian v.......
-
Kang v. Hertz Vehicles LLC
...reasonable driver does not ordinarily hit a car that is traveling in front of him at a steady speed. Cf. Celentano v. Moriarty, 75 A.D.3d 572, 573, 904 N.Y.S.2d 908, 908 (2d Dep't 2010) (noting in an analogous context that "[a] rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie......