Padill v. Zulu Services, Inc.

132 A.D.3d 522, 17 N.Y.S.3d 855
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2015
Docket15908 309679/11
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 522 (Padill v. Zulu Services, Inc.) 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
Padill v. Zulu Services, Inc., 132 A.D.3d 522, 17 N.Y.S.3d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about April 8, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of third-party defendant F.W. Nagel (Nagel) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

It is well settled that “a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle” (Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553 [1st Dept 2010]). Here, Nagel demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that his vehicle was stopped when it was rear-ended by a vehicle owned by defendant/third-party plaintiff Zulu Services, Inc. (Zulu Services) and operated by defendant/third-party plaintiff Yodeny Beltran (Beltran); plaintiffs were passengers in the vehicle driven by Beltran.

In opposition, Zulu Services and Beltran failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Their contention that Nagel stopped short is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence (see Santos v Booth, 126 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2015]; Cruz v Lise, 123 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2014]). Although Beltran had the duty to keep a *523 safe distance between his vehicle and Nagel’s vehicle, he never explained why he failed to do so despite his testimony that he was watching Nagel’s vehicle before the accident happened (see Corrigan v Porter Cab Corp., 101 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Ferreira v. E-J Elec. Installation Co.
220 A.D.3d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Newell v. Bronston
2020 NY Slip Op 2854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Torres v. Kalmar
136 A.D.3d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 522, 17 N.Y.S.3d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padill-v-zulu-services-inc-nyappdiv-2015.