Downs v. Toth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Downs v. Toth

265 A.D.2d 925, 695 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 925 (Downs v. Toth) 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

Downs v. Toth, 265 A.D.2d 925, 695 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. It is well settled that “[a] defense which only alleges that the defendant saw the plaintiffs vehicle [lawfully stopped] * * * that the brakes of the vehicle were applied, but the vehicle nevertheless slid or skidded into the plaintiffs vehicle due to the wet condition of the roadway * * * [is] insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence created by [an] unexplained rear-end collision” (Pincus v Cohen, 198 AD2d 405, 406; see, Schmidt v Edelman, 263 AD2d 502). “When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and to * * * compensate for any known adverse road conditions” (Young v City of New York, 113 AD2d 833, 834). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. It is well settled that “[a] defense which only alleges that the defendant saw the plaintiffs vehicle [lawfully stopped] * * * that the brakes of the vehicle were applied, but the vehicle nevertheless slid or skidded into the plaintiffs vehicle due to the wet condition of the roadway * * * [is] insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence created by [an] unexplained rear-end collision” (Pincus v Cohen, 198 AD2d 405, 406; see, Schmidt v Edelman, 263 AD2d 502). “When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and to * * * compensate for any known adverse road conditions” (Young v City of New York, 113 AD2d 833, 834). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 925, 695 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downs-v-toth-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack