Bajrami v. Twinkle Cab Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 1458, 147 A.D.3d 649, 46 N.Y.S.3d 879
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 23, 2017
Docket3193
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1458 (Bajrami v. Twinkle Cab Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bajrami v. Twinkle Cab Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 1458, 147 A.D.3d 649, 46 N.Y.S.3d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which denied the motion of defendants Ortal Taxi Corp. and Isaiah Ocansey for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment as to liability as against defendants Twinkle Cab Corp. and Saleh Ahmed, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Ortal Taxi Corp. and Ocansey’s motion for summary judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was a passenger in a taxi driven by defendant Ahmed, when it struck the rear of a second vehicle owned by Ortal Taxi Corp. and driven by Ocansey, which had stopped in traffic. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle, and imposes a duty on the part of that driver to “come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident” (Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553 [1st Dept 2010]; see Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]). A claim by the rear driver that “the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence” (Cabrera at 553). Thus, whether or not Ocansey stopped suddenly, as Ahmed claimed, Ahmed failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision, or to raise a triable issue of fact as to Ocansey’s comparative negligence (see e.g. Santos v Booth, 126 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2015]; Chowdhury v Matos, 118 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pena v. Small
2026 NY Slip Op 50330(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2026)
Lewin v. Olowokere
S.D. New York, 2024
Vasquez v. Strickland
177 N.Y.S.3d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Alvarez v. Bracchitta
210 A.D.3d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Grant v. City of New York
163 N.Y.S.3d 58 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Pugh v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 3320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Vasquez v. Buri Chimborazo
2017 NY Slip Op 7774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Diaz v. Khaydarou
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 1458, 147 A.D.3d 649, 46 N.Y.S.3d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bajrami-v-twinkle-cab-corp-nyappdiv-2017.