Klopchin v. Masri

45 A.D.3d 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 737 (Klopchin v. Masri) 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
Klopchin v. Masri, 45 A.D.3d 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated January 18, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Niyazov v Bradford, 13 AD3d 501 [2004]; Russ v Investech Sec., 6 AD3d 602 [2004]; Barile v Lazzarini, 222 AD2d [738]*738635 [1995]). “One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision is a sudden stop of the lead vehicle” (Chepel v Meyers, 306 AD2d 235, 237 [2003]; see Carhuayano v J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413 [2006]; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576 [2004]; Purcell v Axelsen, 286 AD2d 379 [2001]).

The plaintiffs met their burden by submitting evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Emil Norsic & Son, Inc. v L.P. Transp., Inc., 30 AD3d 368 [2006]; Neidereger v Misuraca, 27 AD3d 537 [2006]; David v New York City Bd. of Educ., 19 AD3d 639 [2005]; Rainford v Sung S. Han, 18 AD3d 638 [2005]). In opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ assertion that the injured plaintiff made a sudden stop and failed to give proper signals, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163, contradicted the injured plaintiff’s contention and, if believed, provided a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see Simpson v Eastman, 300 AD2d 647 [2002]; Maschka v Newman, 262 AD2d 615 [1999]; Artis v Jamaica Buses, 262 AD2d 511 [1999]). Rivera, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Geffner v. Irki
S.D. New York, 2023
Reid v. Approved Transp. Servs. Inc.
2022 NY Slip Op 34845(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2022)
Adam v. Catania
2019 NY Slip Op 1549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Duvalsaint v. Yupe-Garcia
2019 NY Slip Op 1196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Grant v. Carrasco
2018 NY Slip Op 6516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Martinez v. Allen
2018 NY Slip Op 5462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Pilgrim v. Vishwanathan
2017 NY Slip Op 4479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Brothers v. Bartling
130 A.D.3d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gallo v. Jairath
122 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Singh v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Marcellin v. Passaro
118 A.D.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Williams v. Spencer-Hall
113 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kertesz v. Jason Transportation Corp.
102 A.D.3d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Lapierre v. Love
100 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Argueta v. Thind
37 Misc. 3d 849 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Hauswirth v. Transcare New York, Inc.
97 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ramos v. TC Paratransit
96 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Gibson v. Levine
95 A.D.3d 1071 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Zweeres v. Materi
94 A.D.3d 1111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Delvalle v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC
94 A.D.3d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 737, 846 N.Y.S.2d 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klopchin-v-masri-nyappdiv-2007.