Lopez v. Minot

• Decision Date: 16 February 1999
• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 469,258 A.D.2d 564
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1477 Luis A. LOPEZ, et al., appellants, v. Jeffrey MINOT, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 469

685 N.Y.S.2d 469

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1477

Luis A. LOPEZ, et al., appellants, v. Jeffrey MINOT, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 16, 1999.

John Marshall, Plainview, N.Y., for appellants.

Eustace & Furey, Uniondale, N.Y. (Edward J. Crawford of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated December 24, 1997, which granted the defendant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer is denied, the plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an inquest on damages.

A rear-end collision into a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, imposing a duty of explanation on its operator (Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392, 638 N.Y.S.2d 110; Barile v. Lazzarini, 222 A.D.2d 635, 635 N.Y.S.2d 694; 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, 573, 556 N.Y.S.2d 761). The operator of the moving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision (see, Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 135, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324), because he or she is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to a reasonable, non-negligent cause (Carter v. Castle Elec. Contr. Co., 26 A.D.2d 83, 85, 271 N.Y.S.2d 51). If the operator cannot come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the plaintiffs may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see, Starace v. Inner Circle Qonexions, supra, at 493, 604 N.Y.S.2d 179; Young v. City of New York, 113 A.D.2d 833, 834, 493 N.Y.S.2d 585).

Here, it is undisputed that the traffic was slowing down and speeding up, and that the defendant saw some "swerving" vehicles in front of the plaintiffs' van. The plaintiff Luis Lopez managed to bring his...