Gibson v. Levine

• Decision Date: 15 May 2012
• Citation: 944 N.Y.S.2d 610,95 A.D.3d 1071,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03806
• Parties: Alicia M. GIBSON, respondent, v. Sean James LEVINE, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

95 A.D.3d 1071
944 N.Y.S.2d 610
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03806

Alicia M. GIBSON, respondent,
v.
Sean James LEVINE, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 15, 2012.

[944 N.Y.S.2d 611]

Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for appellants.

Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC, Carle Place, N.Y. (Jarad Lewis Siegel of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

[95 A.D.3d 1071]In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants[95 A.D.3d 1072]appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered September 7, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” ( Maragos v. Sakurai, 92 A.D.3d 922, 923, 938 N.Y.S.2d 908;see Balducci v. Velasquez, 92 A.D.3d 626, 628, 938 N.Y.S.2d 178). “ ‘A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle’ ” ( Ortiz v. Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 A.D.3d 725, 726, 918 N.Y.S.2d 156, quoting Nsiah–Ababio v. Hunter, 78 A.D.3d 672, 672, 913 N.Y.S.2d 659;seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]; Napolitano v. Galletta, 85 A.D.3d 881, 882, 925 N.Y.S.2d 163). “Accordingly, a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” ( Ortiz v. Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 A.D.3d at 726, 918 N.Y.S.2d 156;see Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 908, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726;Klopchin v. Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311;see also Abbott v. Picture Cars E., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 869, 869, 911 N.Y.S.2d 449;DeLouise v. S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 A.D.3d 489, 490, 904 N.Y.S.2d 761;Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 64 A.D.3d 53, 59, 878 N.Y.S.2d 412).

Here, in support of her motion, the plaintiff relied on, among other things, her deposition testimony and that of the defendant Sean James Levine. The plaintiff testified that, while her vehicle was stopped...