Power v. Hupart

260 A.D.2d 458, 688 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3850
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 42 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered May 18, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the defendant Bret Hupart and owned by the defendant Ken Hupart. She commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. After issue was joined and discovery was conducted, including the examinations before trial of both the plaintiff and the defendant Bret Hupart, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted that motion and we affirm.

When a driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his or her vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle (see, Abramowicz v Roberto, 220 AD2d 374). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the rearmost vehicle, imposing a duty of explanation on the operator to excuse the collision either through a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on a wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause (see, Barile v Lazzarini, 222 AD2d 635; Rebecchi v Whitmore, 172 AD2d 600). Here, the defendants argue that a question of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff made a sudden stop. However, at their examinations before trial, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Bret Hupart testified that the plaintiff came to a sudden stop, nor is it reasonable to draw such an inference from their testimony. Thus, as the defendants failed, inter alia, to offer competent and probative evidence of such a sudden stop, the plaintiff was properly awarded partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Power v. Hupart, 260 A.D.2d 458, 688 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

260 A.D.2d 458 (Power v. Hupart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scaltrito v. Mazzarisi
2024 NY Slip Op 51650(U) (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, 2024)
Randhawa v. Otero
S.D. New York, 2024
Pilato v. State of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 51229(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2024)
Rodriguez v. Kashem
2024 NY Slip Op 50886(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Zitny v. Mancini
S.D. New York, 2020
McLaughlin v. Lunn
137 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Singh v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
O'Rourke v. Carucci
117 A.D.3d 1015 (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)
Taing v. Drewery
100 A.D.3d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Hauswirth v. Transcare New York, Inc.
97 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Balducci v. Velasquez
92 A.D.3d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Krynski v. Chase
707 F. Supp. 2d 318 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Berkan v. Penske Truck Leasing Canada, Inc.
535 F. Supp. 2d 341 (W.D. New York, 2008)
Eybers v. Silverman
37 A.D.3d 403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Brooks v. High Street Professional Building, Inc.
34 A.D.3d 1265 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Briceno v. Milbry
16 A.D.3d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Velazquez v. Denton Limo, Inc.
7 A.D.3d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Flood v. New York City Transit Authority
6 A.D.3d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Chepel v. Meyers
306 A.D.2d 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)