Hauser v. Adamov

• Decision Date: 15 June 2010
• Citation: 74 A.D.3d 1024,904 N.Y.S.2d 102
• Parties: Denada HAUSER, appellant, v. Arkidiy ADAMOV, et al., defendants, George Paul Franz, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

904 N.Y.S.2d 102

74 A.D.3d 1024

Denada HAUSER, appellant,

v. Arkidiy ADAMOV, et al., defendants,George Paul Franz, respondent.

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

June 15, 2010.

Marcel Weisman, New York, N.Y. (Ezra Holczer of counsel), for appellant.

James G. Bilello, Westbury, N.Y. (Patricia McDonagh and Annette Hader of counsel), for respondent.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated June 24, 2009, as granted the motion of the defendant George Paul Franz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, Denada Hauser, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Boris Kleyman, and owned by the defendant Arkidiy Adamov, which was traveling on the Brooklyn Bridge. In front of the vehicle driven by Kleyman was a vehicle driven by the defendant George Paul Franz. In front of the vehicle driven by Franz was a vehicle driven by the defendant Riaz Ahmid. The vehicle driven by Ahmid stopped and the vehicle driven by Franz struck it from behind, then stopped. The vehicle driven by Kleyman struck the vehicle driven by Franzfrom behind. According to Franz, approximately five seconds elapsed between the impact with the vehicle driven by Ahmid and the impact with the vehicle driven by Kleyman.

Hauser commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries against Adamov, Ahmid, Kleyman, and Franz. Franz moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted Franz's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Hauser appeals from so much of the order as granted Franz's motion.

A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision ( see Ramirez v. Konstanzer, 61 A.D.3d 837, 878 N.Y.S.2d 381; Jumandeo v. Franks, 56 A.D.3d 614, 615, 867 N.Y.S.2d 541; Arias v. Rosario, 52 A.D.3d 551, 860 N.Y.S.2d 168; Hakakian v. McCabe, 38 A.D.3d 493, 833 N.Y.S.2d 106). Here, Franz submitted evidence, in the form of his...