Darden v. Jigyi Chai

2024 NY Slip Op 32323(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: July 8, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Darden v Jigyi Chai 2024 NY Slip Op 32323(U) July 8, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153403/2020 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. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2024 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 153403/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JAMES G. CLYNES PART 22M Justice ------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------X INDEX NO. I 53403 /2020 JOYCE DARDEN, MOTIO DATE 04/01 /2024 Plaintiff, MOTIO SEQ. O. 001 - V -

JI GYI CHAI , JEWELL L. DARDEN DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by YSCEF document number (Motion 00 I) 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, 24 25 , 26, 27 , 28 , 29,30, 31 , 32,33,34, 35,36,37, 38 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY

Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendant Jewel Darden for summary

judgment on liability in favor of Defendant Darden and against Plaintiff and Defendant Jing Chai

and for dismissal of the Complaint and cross-claims against Defendant Darden is decided as

follows:

Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an August 14, 2017

accident between the vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Darden, within which Plaintiff

was a passenger, and the vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Chai.

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

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 [ I 985]). 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 Y2d 557, 153403/2020 DARDEN, JOYCE vs. CHAI, JINGYI Page I ors Motion No. 001

[* 1] 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2024 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 153403/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2024

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 her motion, Defendant Darden relies on the examination before trial

testimony of Plaintiff, Defendant Chair and Defendant Darden.

Plaintiff testified that she was a front seat passenger in her sister, Defendant Darden's

vehicle, wearing her seatbelt, Plaintiffs daughter was a rear seat passenger, as they were driving,

they were having a conversation, when suddenly a tire dropped in front of them , Defendant Darden

slammed on her brakes, and Plaintiff heard and felt an impact to the rear of the vehicle.

Defendant Chai testified that he was driving his vehicle in the left most lane, saw the other

vehicle without lights on, brake lights, or hazard lights illuminated, put his foot on the brake, he

couldn ' t tell if the vehicle was moving or stopped, when he realized the vehicle was stopped, he

pressed the brake but not before the front of his vehicle bumped the rear of the other vehicle. Chai

further testified that before applying the brake he was traveling at thirty to thirty-five miles per

hour and believes he was traveli ng at twenty-five miles per hour when he made impact with

Darden's vehicle from the rear.

Defendant Darden testified that she was driving in the left lane when a truck in front of her

slammed on its brakes, the spare tire from underneath the truck came loose, and fell into the road

in front of Defendant Darden she slammed on her brakes, she put her flashers on, put her car in ·

park, the vehicle that lost the tire drove away, then about one minute later, she felt an impact to

the rear of her vehicle.

In opposing Defendant Darden ' s motion for summary judgment, Defendant Chai fails to

raise a triable issue of fact (Callahan v Haji, 189 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2020]). Defendant Chai ' s

opposition includes an uncertified police accident report however the uncertified police report is

inadmissible (Coleman v Macias , 61 AD3d 569 [l st Dept 2009]). Although the report is signed at

153403/2020 DARDEN, JOYCE vs. CHAI, JINGYI Page 2 ofS Motion 'o. 001

[* 2] 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2024 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 153403/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2024

the bottom by the reporting police officer, it is not certified as a business record, and Defendants

do not submit an affidavit or other sworn evidence from someone with personal knowledge

establishing the police report's authenticity or accuracy (Fay v Vargas, 67 AD3d 568 [1st Dept

2009)). Thu , the Court will not consider the uncertified police report.

Relying on his EBT, Defendant Chair contends that Defendant Darden failed to give

adequate warning to other vehicles with brake lights or hazard lights and testified in his EBT that

he did not know whether Defendant Darden's vehicle was stopped or moving. Defendant Chai

also contends that a jury should be left to determine if Defendant Darden was faced with an

emergency situation and whether she acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Plaintiff did not file written opposition to Defendant Darden's motion.

In reply Defendant Darden contends that Defendant Chai ' s testimony that he did not

observe brake lights or hazard lights on Defendant Darden's vehicle does not show an

unreasonable action by Darden and that Darden was faced with an emergency situation. Defendant

Darden further contends that it is undisputed that Defendant Darden 's vehicle was stopped, and

that Defendant Darden' s vehicle was struck in the rear. '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]). In reply, Defendant Darden relies on

Defendant Chai ' s EBT in which Defendant Chai testified that he observed Defendant Darden's

vehicle before the accident.

The emergency doctrine applies only to circumstances where a driver is confronted by a

sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of the dri ver' s own making (Rivera v Y City Tr. Auth., 77

NY2d 322 [1991]). The common-law emergency doctrine "recognizes that when an actor is faced

with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation

153403/2020 DARDEN, JOYCE vs. CHAI, ,JING YI Page J of5 Motion No. 001

3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2024 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 153403/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2024

or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a

speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent

if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context, provided the actor has

not created the emergency" (Caristo v Sanzone , 96 NY2d 172, 174 [2001 ]). The doctrine

recognizes that a person confronted with such an emergency situation "cannot reasonably be held

to the same accuracy of judgment or conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect even

though it later appears that the actor made the wrong decision" (Rivera at 327). If the defendant

could not reasonably foresee any injury as the result of his act, or if his conduct was reasonable in

the light of what he could anticipate, there is no negligence, and no liability (Danielenko v Kinney

Rent A Car, Inc. , 57 NY2d 198,204 [1982]). Here, Defendant Chai fails to provide a non-negligent

explanation for the subject accident. Under these facts, it cannot be said that either defendant was

faced with an emergency situation. The emergency doctrine is typically inapplicable to routine

rear-end traffic accidents (Johnson v .Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 [1st Dept 1999]). Whether a front

motorist stops suddenly to allow the passage of an ambulance, another vehicle, or like here, a tire,

an emergency is not present to rebut the inference of negligence of the driver of the rear vehicle

(DiPaola v Scherpich, 239 AD2d 459 [2d Dept 1997]). A driver is expected to drive at a safe

speed to maintain enough distance with other vehicles to avoid collisions with stopped vehicles

and take into account road conditions (Malone v Morillo, 6 AD3d 324, 325 [1st Dept 2004]

[internal citations omitted).

The Court finds that Defendant Darden is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue

of liability. Here, Defendant Chai was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his vehicle

and Defendant Darden's vehicle and failed to do so. Defendant Chai has also not provided a non-

negligent explanation for impacting Defendant Darden's vehicle in the rear.

153403/2020 DARDEN, JOYCE vs. CHAI, JINGYI Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 001

[* 4] 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2024 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 153403/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2024

Thus, the motion by Defendant Jewel Darden for summary judgment on liability in favor

of Defendant Darden and against Plaintiff and Defendant Jing Chai and for dismissal of the

Complaint and cross-claims against Defendant Darden is granted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion by Defendant Jewel Darden for summary judgment on liability

in favor of Defendant Darden and against Plaintiff and Defendant Jing Chai and for dismissal of

the Complaint and cross-claims against Defendant Darden is granted, and the Clerk is directed to

enter judgment accordingly in favor of said defendant; and it is further

ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendant; 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 otice

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 com1 ' s website).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

7/8/2024 DATE JAMES C. CLYNES, J.S.C.

CHEC KO E: ASE DISPOSED ON-FINAL DI POSITIO '

RANTED D ENI ED RANTED IN PART D)THER A PPLI C TION: ETTLE ORDER UBMITOROER

C HECK IF APPROPRIATE: NCL DES TRAN FER/REASSIGN IO UCIARY APPOI NTi\l E, T DEFER ENCE

153403/2020 DARDEN, JOYCE vs. CHAI , JINGYI Pages ors Motion No. 001

[* 5] 5 of 5