Choudhary v. DiSilvio

2024 NY Slip Op 01698
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 2024
DocketIndex No. 714482/22
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 01698 (Choudhary v. DiSilvio) 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
Choudhary v. DiSilvio, 2024 NY Slip Op 01698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Choudhary v DiSilvio (2024 NY Slip Op 01698)
Choudhary v DiSilvio
2024 NY Slip Op 01698
Decided on March 27, 2024
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 27, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
LARA J. GENOVESI
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2023-02010
(Index No. 714482/22)

[*1]Hasan Choudhary, plaintiff-respondent,

v

Alexa DiSilvio, defendant-respondent, Marie Delphonse, appellant.


Michael Ferro, Melville, NY (Patricia McDonagh of counsel), for appellant.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Marie Delphonse appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Esposito, J.), entered January 20, 2023. The order denied, without prejudice, that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained as a result of a three-vehicle collision. The plaintiff alleged that the lead vehicle was operated by the defendant Marie Delphonse, the middle vehicle was operated by the plaintiff, and the rearmost vehicle was operated by the defendant Alexa DiSilvio. Delphonse and DiSilvio asserted cross-claims against one another. Before the completion of discovery, Delphonse moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against her. In an order entered January 20, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the motion without prejudice. Delphonse appeals.

"A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle" (Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672, 672; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]; Quintanilla v Mark, 210 AD3d 713). "'There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'" (Napier v Gleberman, 212 AD3d 829, 830, quoting Martinez v Allen, 163 AD3d 951, 951 [citation omitted]). "'[N]ot every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. The frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision'" (Martinez v Allen, 163 AD3d at 951-952, quoting Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 64 AD3d 53, 59-60 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, Delphonse established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, her affidavit, which demonstrated that she was not at fault in the happening of the accident (see Theo v Vasquez, 136 AD3d 795; Le Grand v Silberstein, 123 AD3d 773, 775) through her averment that her vehicle had slowed to approximately 10 miles per hour for the traffic conditions ahead when it was struck in the rear by the plaintiff's vehicle (see Le Grand [*2]v Silberstein, 123 AD3d at 775). In opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Specifically, the plaintiff's account in his affidavit as to the happening of the accident conflicted with Delphonse's account as to the happening of the accident.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied, without prejudice, Delphonse's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against her.

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, GENOVESI and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Le Grand v. Silberstein
123 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Theo v. Vasquez
136 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Tutrani v. County of Suffolk
64 A.D.3d 53 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Nsiah-Ababio v. Hunter
78 A.D.3d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Quintanilla v. Mark
177 N.Y.S.3d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Napier v. Gleberman
212 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 01698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choudhary-v-disilvio-nyappdiv-2024.