Dicturel v. Dukureh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dicturel v. Dukureh

71 A.D.3d 558, 897 N.Y.S.2d 87

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 558 (Dicturel v. Dukureh) 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

Dicturel v. Dukureh, 71 A.D.3d 558, 897 N.Y.S.2d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered February 10, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, [559]*559unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs vehicle was struck in the rear by defendant’s vehicle. “When such a rear-end collision occurs, the injured occupant[ ] of the front vehicle [is] entitled to summary judgment on liability, unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a non-negligent explanation, in evidentiary form, for the collision” (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1999]). Here, defendant’s opposition failed to provide such a nonnegligent explanation. Although defendant maintained that the accident was the result of plaintiff stopping suddenly, this does not explain his failure to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him and is “insufficient to rebut the presumption that no negligence on plaintiff’s part contributed to the accident” (Soto-Maroquin v Mellet, 63 AD3d 449, 450 [2009]; see Verdejo v Aguirre, 8 AD3d 63 [2004]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered February 10, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, [559]*559unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs vehicle was struck in the rear by defendant’s vehicle. “When such a rear-end collision occurs, the injured occupant[ ] of the front vehicle [is] entitled to summary judgment on liability, unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a non-negligent explanation, in evidentiary form, for the collision” (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1999]). Here, defendant’s opposition failed to provide such a nonnegligent explanation. Although defendant maintained that the accident was the result of plaintiff stopping suddenly, this does not explain his failure to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him and is “insufficient to rebut the presumption that no negligence on plaintiff’s part contributed to the accident” (Soto-Maroquin v Mellet, 63 AD3d 449, 450 [2009]; see Verdejo v Aguirre, 8 AD3d 63 [2004]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 558, 897 N.Y.S.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicturel-v-dukureh-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack