Jean v. Zong Hai Xu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jean v. Zong Hai Xu

288 A.D.2d 62, 732 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10819

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 62 (Jean v. Zong Hai Xu) 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

Jean v. Zong Hai Xu, 288 A.D.2d 62, 732 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 20, 2000, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and their cross motion for summary judgment as to defendant’s counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stationary vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence, unless the defendant can proffer a non-negligent explanation for his or her failure to maintain a safe distance between the cars (see, Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250). In this case, plaintiffs made such a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, and in opposition defendant submitted only the unsubstantiated affirmation of counsel, which was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Given the lack of any explanation from defendant for the collision, summary judgment for plaintiffs was not rendered premature by the lack of discovery (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 272). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 20, 2000, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and their cross motion for summary judgment as to defendant’s counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stationary vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence, unless the defendant can proffer a non-negligent explanation for his or her failure to maintain a safe distance between the cars (see, Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250). In this case, plaintiffs made such a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, and in opposition defendant submitted only the unsubstantiated affirmation of counsel, which was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Given the lack of any explanation from defendant for the collision, summary judgment for plaintiffs was not rendered premature by the lack of discovery (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 272). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 62, 732 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jean-v-zong-hai-xu-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack