Garcia v. Cotzomi

167 N.Y.S.3d 407, 2022 NY Slip Op 03500

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 1, 2022
• Docket: Index No. 528064/19
• Status: Published

Opinion

Garcia v Cotzomi (2022 NY Slip Op 03500)

Garcia v Cotzomi

2022 NY Slip Op 03500

Decided on June 1, 2022

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 1, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

2020-09428
(Index No. 528064/19)

[*1]Andriana M. Garcia, appellant,

v

Gregorio Cotzomi, respondent.

William Pager, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, NY, of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated December 2, 2020. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906; Pollet v Charyn, 200 AD3d 728). Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through the submission of her affidavit, wherein she stated that she was stopped at a red light when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle.

However, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant's affidavit submitted in opposition raised a triable issue of fact (see Rahman v Montesdeoca, 186 AD3d 631; Wynter v City of New York, 173 AD3d 1122, 1123-1124).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached light of our determination.

LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court