Moylett v. Zioulis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moylett v. Zioulis

239 A.D.2d 396, 658 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5104

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 396 (Moylett v. Zioulis) 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

Moylett v. Zioulis, 239 A.D.2d 396, 658 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated April 29, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a rear-end collision into an automobile stopped for a red light creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132, 135; Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392; Gambino v City of New York, 205 AD2d 583). Since the defendants failed to come forward with evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a defense or as to any negligent conduct on the part of the plaintiffs (see, Carter v Castle Elec. Constr. Co., 26 AD2d 83, 85), the Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment on the issue of liability to the plaintiffs.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated April 29, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a rear-end collision into an automobile stopped for a red light creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132, 135; Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392; Gambino v City of New York, 205 AD2d 583). Since the defendants failed to come forward with evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a defense or as to any negligent conduct on the part of the plaintiffs (see, Carter v Castle Elec. Constr. Co., 26 AD2d 83, 85), the Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment on the issue of liability to the plaintiffs.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 396, 658 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moylett-v-zioulis-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack