Chowdhury v. Matos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chowdhury v. Matos

118 A.D.3d 488, 987 N.Y.S.2d 132

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 10, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 488 (Chowdhury v. Matos) 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

Chowdhury v. Matos, 118 A.D.3d 488, 987 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered June 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of plaintiff Arime U. Mohammed for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Dismissal of the counterclaim asserted against Mohammed is warranted in this action where Mohammed, while driving his vehicle in which plaintiff Chowdhury was a passenger, was stopped at a red light when his vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by defendant Collazo and owned by defendant Matos (see Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553 [1st Dept 2010]; Francisco v Schoepfer, 30 AD3d 275 [1st Dept 2006]). Contrary to defendants’ contention that Mohammed’s alleged abrupt stop raises an issue of comparative negligence, “an assertion that the lead vehicle ‘stopped suddenly’ is generally insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle” (Francisco at 276). Furthermore, even crediting the testimony of defendant Collazo that Mohammed abruptly stopped in the middle of the intersection and not for a red light, defendants have failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see Malone v Morillo, 6 AD3d 324 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered June 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of plaintiff Arime U. Mohammed for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Dismissal of the counterclaim asserted against Mohammed is warranted in this action where Mohammed, while driving his vehicle in which plaintiff Chowdhury was a passenger, was stopped at a red light when his vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by defendant Collazo and owned by defendant Matos (see Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553 [1st Dept 2010]; Francisco v Schoepfer, 30 AD3d 275 [1st Dept 2006]). Contrary to defendants’ contention that Mohammed’s alleged abrupt stop raises an issue of comparative negligence, “an assertion that the lead vehicle ‘stopped suddenly’ is generally insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle” (Francisco at 276). Furthermore, even crediting the testimony of defendant Collazo that Mohammed abruptly stopped in the middle of the intersection and not for a red light, defendants have failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see Malone v Morillo, 6 AD3d 324 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 488, 987 N.Y.S.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-matos-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack