Erskine v. Pierre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erskine v. Pierre

262 A.D.2d 274, 691 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 274 (Erskine v. Pierre) 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

Erskine v. Pierre, 262 A.D.2d 274, 691 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132, 135). The defendant testified that she was stopped on Route 303 to permit a car in front of her to turn left when her vehicle was struck from behind by the plaintiffs motorcycle. The plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, but speculated that the defendant’s car entered Route 303 from an exit ramp from Route 59, and stopped in front of him. There was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132, 135). The defendant testified that she was stopped on Route 303 to permit a car in front of her to turn left when her vehicle was struck from behind by the plaintiffs motorcycle. The plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, but speculated that the defendant’s car entered Route 303 from an exit ramp from Route 59, and stopped in front of him. There was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 274, 691 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erskine-v-pierre-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack