Crisano v. Comp Tools Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crisano v. Comp Tools Corp.

295 A.D.2d 393, 743 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated May 11, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The accident at issue occurred when the plaintiffs vehicle collided with the defendants’ vehicle, which was “stop[ped] in traffic.” The rear end collision created a prima facie case of liability with respect to the plaintiff, which imposed a duty of explanation upon her to rebut the inference of negligence by providing some nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Colon v Cruz, 277 AD2d 195; Hanak v Jani, 265 AD2d 453; Power v Hupart, 260 AD2d 458; Hurley v Izzo, 248 AD2d 674, 675-676). The plaintiff failed to meet that burden (see Filippazzo v Santiago, 277 AD2d 419-420). Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated May 11, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The accident at issue occurred when the plaintiffs vehicle collided with the defendants’ vehicle, which was “stop[ped] in traffic.” The rear end collision created a prima facie case of liability with respect to the plaintiff, which imposed a duty of explanation upon her to rebut the inference of negligence by providing some nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Colon v Cruz, 277 AD2d 195; Hanak v Jani, 265 AD2d 453; Power v Hupart, 260 AD2d 458; Hurley v Izzo, 248 AD2d 674, 675-676). The plaintiff failed to meet that burden (see Filippazzo v Santiago, 277 AD2d 419-420). Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Crisano v. Comp Tools Corp., 295 A.D.2d 393, 743 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

295 A.D.2d 393 (Crisano v. Comp Tools Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related