Nadella v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 01 May 2018
• Docket Number: 6410,Index 109643/11
• Citation: 75 N.Y.S.3d 21,161 A.D.3d 412
• Parties: Robert NADELLA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Andrew Allen, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 412
75 N.Y.S.3d 21

Robert NADELLA, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents,

Andrew Allen, et al., Defendants.

6410
Index 109643/11

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

ENTERED: MAY 1, 2018

75 N.Y.S.3d 22

Sacks & Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.

Renwick, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Webber, Kahn, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about February 6, 2017, which granted the motion of defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Sanitation, and Mark Lambert (the City defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff was a passenger in a van driven by his son, defendant Allen, when it swerved to the right to avoid hitting the rear of a tour bus that braked suddenly in front of it, and then crashed into the rear of a City sanitation truck that was double-parked in a traffic lane on the Westside Highway. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the City defendants argued that Allen was solely at fault in connection with the accident because he hit the rear of another vehicle, and failed to present a non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Cabrera v. Rodriguez, 72 A.D.3d 553, 553, 900 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept. 2010] ). However, the City defendants did not establish their own driver's absence of

75 N.Y.S.3d 23

fault. It is well-settled that a vehicle improperly double-parked in violation of applicable traffic regulations (see 34 RCNY § 4–08[f][1] ) may be found to be at fault in connection with a rear-end accident, since "a reasonable jury could find that a rear-end collision is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of double parking ... on a busy Manhattan street" ( White v. Diaz, 49 A.D.3d 134, 140, 854 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept. 2008] ; see ...