Sayyed v. Murray

• Decision Date: 07 August 2013
• Citation: 109 A.D.3d 464,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05563,970 N.Y.S.2d 279
• Parties: Mubashir A. SAYYED, et al., appellants, v. Padraic J. MURRAY, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

109 A.D.3d 464
970 N.Y.S.2d 279
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05563

Mubashir A. SAYYED, et al., appellants,
v.
Padraic J. MURRAY, respondent.

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

Aug. 7, 2013.

[970 N.Y.S.2d 280]

Kagan & Gertel, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Irving Gertel of counsel), for appellants.

Keane Mathless Bernheimer, PLLC, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Thomas J. Keane of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

[109 A.D.3d 464]In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), dated October 30, 2012, 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.

On March 14, 2011, the injured plaintiff, Mubashir A. Sayyed, the owner and operator of a 2007 Lincoln Town Car, was stopped in the left lane on the Kosciuszko Bridge when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a 2005 Chevy Cobalt owned and operated by the defendant, Padraic J. Murray. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. After the defendant was deposed, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle ( see

[970 N.Y.S.2d 281]

Strickland v. Tirino, 99 A.D.3d 888, 889, 952 N.Y.S.2d 599;Scheker v. Brown, 85 A.D.3d 1007, 925 N.Y.S.2d 528). Thus, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the rearmost vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see Abbott v. Picture Cars E., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 869, 911 N.Y.S.2d 449;Gaeta v. Carter, 6 A.D.3d 576, 775 N.Y.S.2d 86). The operator of the moving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision because he or she is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to, inter alia, a mechanical failure, an unavoidable skidding on a wet pavement, or some other...