Matias v. Grose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matias v. Grose

123 A.D.3d 485, 999 N.Y.S.2d 143

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2014

Docket13725 20948/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 485 (Matias v. Grose) 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

Matias v. Grose, 123 A.D.3d 485, 999 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered April 4, 2014, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was driving in the left lane of a three-lane interstate highway when her car was struck by defendants’ tractor trailer, which had been driving in the middle lane. Defendant driver testified that the accident occurred when a tractor trailer driving in front of him suddenly stopped, causing him to apply his brakes to try to avoid a rear-end collision. Defendants’ tractor trailer jack-knifed, causing its rear portion to enter plaintiffs adjoining left lane and crush her car against the concrete divider.

In the absence of a showing of willful non-disclosure or prejudice to defendants, the court properly considered plaintiff’s expert affidavit opining that defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) by failing to maintain a safe distance from the tractor trailer in front of him (see Herman v Moore, *486 106 AD3d 666 [1st Dept 2013]; Baulieu v Ardsley Assoc., L.P., 85 AD3d 554, 555 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 3101 [d] [1]).

In opposition to this prima facie showing that defendant driver was negligent, defendants failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1st Dept 1999]). The emergency doctrine is inapplicable, since in requiring drivers to maintain a safe distance between their vehicles and the ones in front of them, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) imposes the duty to be aware of traffic conditions, including other vehicles suddenly stopping or slowing down (see Johnson, 261 AD2d at 271-272; Williams v Kadri, 112 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2013]; Rodriguez v Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 44 AD3d 216, 224 [1st Dept 2007]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered April 4, 2014, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was driving in the left lane of a three-lane interstate highway when her car was struck by defendants’ tractor trailer, which had been driving in the middle lane. Defendant driver testified that the accident occurred when a tractor trailer driving in front of him suddenly stopped, causing him to apply his brakes to try to avoid a rear-end collision. Defendants’ tractor trailer jack-knifed, causing its rear portion to enter plaintiffs adjoining left lane and crush her car against the concrete divider.

In the absence of a showing of willful non-disclosure or prejudice to defendants, the court properly considered plaintiff’s expert affidavit opining that defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) by failing to maintain a safe distance from the tractor trailer in front of him (see Herman v Moore, *486 106 AD3d 666 [1st Dept 2013]; Baulieu v Ardsley Assoc., L.P., 85 AD3d 554, 555 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 3101 [d] [1]).

In opposition to this prima facie showing that defendant driver was negligent, defendants failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1st Dept 1999]). The emergency doctrine is inapplicable, since in requiring drivers to maintain a safe distance between their vehicles and the ones in front of them, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) imposes the duty to be aware of traffic conditions, including other vehicles suddenly stopping or slowing down (see Johnson, 261 AD2d at 271-272; Williams v Kadri, 112 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2013]; Rodriguez v Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 44 AD3d 216, 224 [1st Dept 2007]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 485, 999 N.Y.S.2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matias-v-grose-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack