Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2010 |
| Citation | 77 A.D.3d 820,908 N.Y.S.2d 744 |
| Parties | Maritza VARGAS, et al., respondents, v. LUXURY FAMILY CORP., et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Michael G. Kruzynski and Seth Weinberg of counsel), for appellants.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated March 17, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs' 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 denied.
On December 5, 2007, on Bushwick Avenue in Brooklyn, near its intersection withMoffat Street, a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff Maritza Vargas, in which the plaintiff Ruben Vargas was a passenger, was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant SM Tanvir Uddin (hereinafter Uddin) and owned by the defendant Luxury Family Corp.
"A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision" ( Klopchin v. Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311; see Hakakian v. McCabe, 38 A.D.3d 493, 833 N.Y.S.2d 106). Here, the plaintiffs satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that their vehicle was stopped or stopping when it was struck in the rear by the vehicle operated by Uddin. In opposition, the defendants submitted, inter alia, Uddin's affidavit, wherein he stated that because of slippery road conditions resulting from falling snow, he was traveling well below the speed limit approximately two to three car lengths behindVargas's vehicle, when Vargas's vehicle stopped suddenly and without warning in the lane of traffic for no apparent reason. Uddin applied his brakes, but was unable to stop before striking Vargas's vehicle in the rear. Thus, the defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether Vargas negligently operated the vehicle and caused the accident ( see Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 724, 725, 871 N.Y.S.2d 215; Delayhaye v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Paratransit
...v. Brown, 85 A.D.3d 1007, 1007, 925 N.Y.S.2d 528;Plummer v. Nourddine, 82 A.D.3d 1069, 1069, 919 N.Y.S.2d 187;Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp., 77 A.D.3d 820, 820, 908 N.Y.S.2d 744;Volpe v. Limoncelli, 74 A.D.3d 795, 902 N.Y.S.2d 152). A nonnegligent explanation may include evidence of a mecha......
-
Le Grand v. Silberstein
...York, 120 A.D.3d 526, 526, 991 N.Y.S.2d 637 ; Ramos v. TC Paratransit, 96 A.D.3d 924, 925, 946 N.Y.S.2d 644 ; Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp., 77 A.D.3d 820, 821, 908 N.Y.S.2d 744 ; Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 724, 871 N.Y.S.2d 215 ). However, “vehicle stops which are foreseeable ......
-
Argueta v. Thind
...v. Drakoulis, 304 A.D.2d 522, 756 N.Y.S.2d 881], the lead driver's unexplained stop in moving traffic [Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp., 77 A.D.3d 820, 821, 908 N.Y.S.2d 744;Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 724, 725, 871 N.Y.S.2d 215;Chepel v. Meyers, 306 A.D.2d 235, 237, 762 N.Y.S.2d 9......
-
Pollard v. Indep. Beauty & Barber Supply Co.
...and without warning in the intersection despite the fact that it was clear of traffic and pedestrians ( see Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp., 77 A.D.3d 820, 821, 908 N.Y.S.2d 744; Delayhaye v. Caledonia Limo & Car Serv., Inc., 49 A.D.3d 588, 856 N.Y.S.2d 142; Richards v. Manley Driving School,......