Levin v. Chaudhry

26 A.D.3d 472, 809 N.Y.S.2d 459
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 472 (Levin v. Chaudhry) 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
Levin v. Chaudhry, 26 A.D.3d 472, 809 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 12, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint [473]*473on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We affirm the Supreme Court’s order, but on grounds other than those relied upon by the Supreme Court. The report of the defendant’s neurologist failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]).

In addition, the Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Briceno v Milbry, 16 AD3d 448 [2005]; Niyazov v Bradford, 13 AD3d 501 [2004]; Russ v Investech Sec., 6 AD3d 602 [2004]). The plaintiff made out a prima facie case of negligence by establishing that he was struck by a taxicab owned by the defendant Aharony Taxi Corp., and operated by the defendant Khawar R. Chaudhry, and that the taxicab was unable to stop in time to avoid coming into contact with the rear of the plaintiffs vehicle (see Briceno v Milbry, supra). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Russ v Investech Sec., supra). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ahmad v. Grimaldi
40 A.D.3d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 472, 809 N.Y.S.2d 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-chaudhry-nyappdiv-2006.