Doran v. Wells

101 A.D.3d 937, 957 N.Y.2d 249
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 2012·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

On their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiffs vehicle was fully stopped at a red traffic light when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle (see Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]; Pollard v Independent Beauty & Barber Supply Co., 94 AD3d 845, 845-846 [2012]; Balducci v Velasquez, 92 AD3d 626, 628-629 [2012]). However, in opposition, the defendant, who allegedly experienced a hypoglycemic attack immediately before the accident, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a sudden and unforeseeable medical emergency that constituted a non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Romero v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 25 AD3d 683, 684 [2006]; Estate of Marone v Chaves, 306 AD2d 372, 373 [2003]; Thomas v Hulslander, 233 AD2d 567, 568 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Doran v. Wells, 101 A.D.3d 937, 957 N.Y.2d 249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 937 (Doran v. Wells) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitt v. Mroz
2017 NY Slip Op 334 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Serpas v. Bell
117 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)