Biestek v Rahuman 2024 NY Slip Op 32348(U) July 9, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No.: 150277/2021 Judge: James G. Clynes Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. JAMES G. CLYNES PART 22M Justice -----------------------.-----------------------------------------------------·---x INDEX NO. 150277/2021 BRETT BIESTEK, LESLIE SCHAEFER, MOTION DATE NIA Plaintiff. MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- MOHAMMED RAHUMAN, MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL, DECISION+ ORDER ON REMI GAY, MAMADOU DIALLO MOTION Defendant. --... -------------------..... -------------------------------···· .... -------------x The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 80, 81, 82, 83, 99. I 00. I 0 I were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendant Remi Gay ("Gay") for summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant Gay, dismissing the Complaint and any cross-claims and/or
. counter-claims pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212 on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to establish a
prima facie case of liability as and against the moving Defendant as a matter of law and that
Defendant Gay is free from fault is decided as follows:
Background
Plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a July 12, 2020,
motor vehicle accident between a vehicle operated, with permission by the vehicles owner, by
Defendant Mohammad Rahuman ("Rahuman") within which Plaintiffs Brett Biestek and Leslie
Shaefer were passengers; a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Remi Gay ("Gay"); and a
vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Mamadou Diallo ("Diallo"). The accident took place
between the parties on the westbound Brooklyn-Queens Expressway ("BQE'') near Exit 31. In
both Plaintiffs" and co-Defendants' Examinations Before Trial ("EBT"). all parties allege Diallo's
vehicle made impact with the rear of Gay's vehicle which subsequently made impact with the rear
of Rahuman' s vehicle within which Plaintiffs were passengers.
150277/2021 BIESTEK, BRETI vs. RAHL'MAN, J'HOHAMMED Page 1 uf5 Motion No. 004
[* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
In Plaintiff Brett Biestek's EBT, he testified that he was a passenger seated in the second
row of the vehicle behind the front passenger seat in an Uber driven by Rahuman that was traveling
westbound on the BQE. Plaintiff Biestek further testified that at the time of the accident,
Rahuman's vehicle was in the process of slowing down, but had not come to a complete stop. He
did not see the vehicle that made impact with Rahuman 's before the accident occurred.
In Plaintiff Leslie Shaefer's EBT, she testified that she was a passenger seated in the back
of the vehicle next to Plaintiff Biestek in an Uber driven by Rahuman on a highway between La
Guardia airport and "the city." She further testified that Rah um an' s vehicle had come to a
complete stop but may have been rolling forward for approximately two seconds before the
accident. She testified that she did not see any vehicles behind Rahuman's vehicle before the
accident.
In Rahuman's EBT, he testified that he was driving two Uber customers to Brooklyn from
Queens on the BQE. Rahuman further testified that he moved his vehicle into the exit lane for
Exit 31 and was stopped for one to two minutes before the accident occurred. Rahuman testified
that he "think[s ]" his vehicle was the last vehicle in traffic.
In Diallo's EBT, he testified that he \Vas driving westbound on the BQE with two non-
party customers seated in the rear of his vehicle at the time of the accident. Diallo further testified
that he does not recall whether the vehicle in front of his was moving or stopped at the time of the
accident and did not notice the vehicle in front of his before contact was made.
In Gay's EBT, she testified that she was driving westbound on the BQE with a non-party
passenger. Gay affirms her right foot was on the brake and her vehicle had come to a complete
stop for approximately five seconds before the accident and that the vehicle in front of hers was
stopped as well.
Discussion
To grant summary judgment, it must be clear that no material or triable issues of fact are
presented (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). The proponent of
150277/2021 BIESTEK. BRETT vs. RAHUMAN, MOHAMMED Page 2 of5 Motion :-\o. 00~
[* 2] 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a
matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case
(Wine grad v NY Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [ 1985]). Once such entitlement has been
demonstrated by the moving party, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to
"demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action
or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure .. .to do [so]" (Zuckerman v New York, 49 NY2d 557,
560 [1980]). A defendant's motion for summary judgment opposed by a plaintiff must be decided
on the version of the facts most favorable to the plaintiff (Mullin v 100 Church LLC. 12 AD3d
263, 264 [1st Dept 2004]).
In support of the motion for summary judgment, Gay submits the Plaintiffs' summons and
complaint, Gay's answer, police report, Plaintiffs' EBTs, co-Defendanfs EBTs, and Gay's EBT.
The police report and EB Ts of all parties are in conflict as to the order of the vehicles involved at
the time of the accident. Gay testified in her EBT that she had come to a complete stop for
approximately five seconds and had her right foot on the brake when her vehicle was hit from the
rear without warning. Gay further testified that the impact launched her vehicle forward into the
rear of a vehicle that was also stopped.
"A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle, or a vehicle slowing down, establishes a prima
facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear-ending vehicle, which may be
rebutted if that driver can provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident" (Baez-Pena v MM
Truck & Body Repair, Inc .. 151 AD3d 473, 476 [1st Dept 2017] [internal citations omitted]).
Further, being propelled forward in a chain reaction collision is a non-negligent explanation for a
rear-end motor vehicle accident (see Arrasit v Sbordone, 225 A.D.2d 375 [1st Dep't 1996]).
In opposition, Diallo contends the question of fault should be determined by a jury. Diallo
testified that the front of his vehicle made contact with the rear of the other vehicle, and that prior
to the impact, he did not notice the other vehicle.
15027712021 BIESTEK. BRETT vs. RAHllMAN. MOHAMMED PageJ of5 Motion :\'o. 004
[* 3] 3 of 5 INDEX NO.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Biestek v Rahuman 2024 NY Slip Op 32348(U) July 9, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No.: 150277/2021 Judge: James G. Clynes Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. JAMES G. CLYNES PART 22M Justice -----------------------.-----------------------------------------------------·---x INDEX NO. 150277/2021 BRETT BIESTEK, LESLIE SCHAEFER, MOTION DATE NIA Plaintiff. MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- MOHAMMED RAHUMAN, MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL, DECISION+ ORDER ON REMI GAY, MAMADOU DIALLO MOTION Defendant. --... -------------------..... -------------------------------···· .... -------------x The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 80, 81, 82, 83, 99. I 00. I 0 I were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendant Remi Gay ("Gay") for summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant Gay, dismissing the Complaint and any cross-claims and/or
. counter-claims pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212 on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to establish a
prima facie case of liability as and against the moving Defendant as a matter of law and that
Defendant Gay is free from fault is decided as follows:
Background
Plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a July 12, 2020,
motor vehicle accident between a vehicle operated, with permission by the vehicles owner, by
Defendant Mohammad Rahuman ("Rahuman") within which Plaintiffs Brett Biestek and Leslie
Shaefer were passengers; a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Remi Gay ("Gay"); and a
vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Mamadou Diallo ("Diallo"). The accident took place
between the parties on the westbound Brooklyn-Queens Expressway ("BQE'') near Exit 31. In
both Plaintiffs" and co-Defendants' Examinations Before Trial ("EBT"). all parties allege Diallo's
vehicle made impact with the rear of Gay's vehicle which subsequently made impact with the rear
of Rahuman' s vehicle within which Plaintiffs were passengers.
150277/2021 BIESTEK, BRETI vs. RAHL'MAN, J'HOHAMMED Page 1 uf5 Motion No. 004
[* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
In Plaintiff Brett Biestek's EBT, he testified that he was a passenger seated in the second
row of the vehicle behind the front passenger seat in an Uber driven by Rahuman that was traveling
westbound on the BQE. Plaintiff Biestek further testified that at the time of the accident,
Rahuman's vehicle was in the process of slowing down, but had not come to a complete stop. He
did not see the vehicle that made impact with Rahuman 's before the accident occurred.
In Plaintiff Leslie Shaefer's EBT, she testified that she was a passenger seated in the back
of the vehicle next to Plaintiff Biestek in an Uber driven by Rahuman on a highway between La
Guardia airport and "the city." She further testified that Rah um an' s vehicle had come to a
complete stop but may have been rolling forward for approximately two seconds before the
accident. She testified that she did not see any vehicles behind Rahuman's vehicle before the
accident.
In Rahuman's EBT, he testified that he was driving two Uber customers to Brooklyn from
Queens on the BQE. Rahuman further testified that he moved his vehicle into the exit lane for
Exit 31 and was stopped for one to two minutes before the accident occurred. Rahuman testified
that he "think[s ]" his vehicle was the last vehicle in traffic.
In Diallo's EBT, he testified that he \Vas driving westbound on the BQE with two non-
party customers seated in the rear of his vehicle at the time of the accident. Diallo further testified
that he does not recall whether the vehicle in front of his was moving or stopped at the time of the
accident and did not notice the vehicle in front of his before contact was made.
In Gay's EBT, she testified that she was driving westbound on the BQE with a non-party
passenger. Gay affirms her right foot was on the brake and her vehicle had come to a complete
stop for approximately five seconds before the accident and that the vehicle in front of hers was
stopped as well.
Discussion
To grant summary judgment, it must be clear that no material or triable issues of fact are
presented (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). The proponent of
150277/2021 BIESTEK. BRETT vs. RAHUMAN, MOHAMMED Page 2 of5 Motion :-\o. 00~
[* 2] 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a
matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case
(Wine grad v NY Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [ 1985]). Once such entitlement has been
demonstrated by the moving party, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to
"demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action
or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure .. .to do [so]" (Zuckerman v New York, 49 NY2d 557,
560 [1980]). A defendant's motion for summary judgment opposed by a plaintiff must be decided
on the version of the facts most favorable to the plaintiff (Mullin v 100 Church LLC. 12 AD3d
263, 264 [1st Dept 2004]).
In support of the motion for summary judgment, Gay submits the Plaintiffs' summons and
complaint, Gay's answer, police report, Plaintiffs' EBTs, co-Defendanfs EBTs, and Gay's EBT.
The police report and EB Ts of all parties are in conflict as to the order of the vehicles involved at
the time of the accident. Gay testified in her EBT that she had come to a complete stop for
approximately five seconds and had her right foot on the brake when her vehicle was hit from the
rear without warning. Gay further testified that the impact launched her vehicle forward into the
rear of a vehicle that was also stopped.
"A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle, or a vehicle slowing down, establishes a prima
facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear-ending vehicle, which may be
rebutted if that driver can provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident" (Baez-Pena v MM
Truck & Body Repair, Inc .. 151 AD3d 473, 476 [1st Dept 2017] [internal citations omitted]).
Further, being propelled forward in a chain reaction collision is a non-negligent explanation for a
rear-end motor vehicle accident (see Arrasit v Sbordone, 225 A.D.2d 375 [1st Dep't 1996]).
In opposition, Diallo contends the question of fault should be determined by a jury. Diallo
testified that the front of his vehicle made contact with the rear of the other vehicle, and that prior
to the impact, he did not notice the other vehicle.
15027712021 BIESTEK. BRETT vs. RAHllMAN. MOHAMMED PageJ of5 Motion :\'o. 004
[* 3] 3 of 5 INDEX NO. 150277/2021 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
Plaintiffs did not submit any materials m opposition to Gay's motion for summary
judgment.
In reply, Gay contends that Diallo failed to come forward with any evidence of a non-
negligent explanation for the rear end collision, nor does his opposition create a triable issue of
fact. "In a chain-reaction collision, responsibility presumptively rests with the rearmost driver
[ ... ]" (Mustafa} v Driscoll, 5 AD3d 13 8 [1st Dept 2004 J [internal citations omitted]). In Mustafa},
the plaintiff was a passenger in the first vehicle of a three-car collision, resulting in the plaintiffs
injuries. The second vehicle in the collision was stopped behind the plaintiffs vehicle when it
was struck in the rear by the third vehicle propelling it forward into the rear of plaintiffs vehicle
(Id. at 138, 139). The court found it to be undisputed that the third car first rear-ended the second
car, propelling it forward and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue sufficient to defeat the
second vehicle defendant's motion for summary judgment (Id. at 139).
Here, like in Mustafa}, it is undisputed that Gay's vehicle was at a complete stop when it
was struck in the rear by Diallo's vehicle, propelling Gay forward. The parties' testimony Gay
submitted establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Winegrad 64 NY2d at
851; Zuckerman 49 NY2d at 560). Plaintiffs did not respond in opposition and Diallo has failed
to provide a non-negligent explanation to defeat Gay's motion for summary judgment. Diallo's
testimony fails to raise a non-negligent explanation for the rear end collision. Diallo failed to
establish that he maintained a safe following distance (see YTL 1129 [a]; Baez-Pena v MM Truck
& Body Repair, Inc., 151 AD3d 473 [Ist Dept 2017]). Gay's motion for summary judgment is
granted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion of Defendant Remi Gay to dismiss the complaint herein is
granted and the complaint and any cross-claims are dismissed in their entirety as against said
defendant, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of said defendant; and
it is further
15027712021 BIESTEK. BREIT vs. RAHUMAN, \IOHAMMED Page 4 ofS \lotion 'i u. 00~
[* 4] 4 of 5 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2024 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 150277/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2024
ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining Defendants;
and it is further
ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers
filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with Notice
of Entry upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, who are directed
to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General
Clerk· s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on
Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-
Filing" page on the court's website).
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
7/9/2024 DATE JAMES G. CLYNES, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRAl'>:TED D DENIED GRANTED IN PART D OTHER APPUCATION: SETTU; ORDER SUBMIT OROER
CllECK IF APPROPRIATE: lr>;Cl.UDES TRA:-.;SFEIVRF:ASSIGN FIDUCIARY APl'Ol'.'OTMEr.T D REFERENCE
150277/2021 BIESTEK, BREIT vs. RAHUMAN, MOHAMMED Motion No. 004 Pages of5
[* 5] 5 of 5