Garner v. Chevalier Transportation Corp.

58 A.D.3d 802, 872 N.Y.S.2d 495
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 802 (Garner v. Chevalier Transportation Corp.) 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
Garner v. Chevalier Transportation Corp., 58 A.D.3d 802, 872 N.Y.S.2d 495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 15, 2008, which denied his motion for summaiy judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

On June 23, 2004, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the defendant Chevalier Transportation Corp. and operated by the defendant Jeffery Martin. On his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit in which he stated that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the driver and owner of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty of explanation on its driver (see Johnston v Spoto, 47 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]). In opposition, the defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Myrie v Atehortua, 275 AD2d 699 [2000]). Furthermore, contrary to the contention of the defendants, the plaintiffs motion was not premature (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Kimya-garov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summaiy judgment on the issue of liability. Spolzino, J.E, Covello, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Zinna v. Natural Stone Trading, Inc.
74 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Hill v. Ackall
71 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Staton v. Ilic
69 A.D.3d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 802, 872 N.Y.S.2d 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-chevalier-transportation-corp-nyappdiv-2009.