Rosa v. Colonial Transit, Inc.

276 A.D.2d 781, 715 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 30, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 781 (Rosa v. Colonial Transit, 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
Rosa v. Colonial Transit, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 781, 715 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Ray’s School Trans. Co., Inc., Richard K. Wilkerson, and Sunny Side School Transportation Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated August 6, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment. Although a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle (see, Martin v Pullafico, 272 AD2d 305; Mundo v City of Yonkers, 249 AD2d 522; Migdol v Striker, 215 AD2d 358), a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the driver of the stopped bus, the appellant Richard K. Wilkerson, contributed to the accident by making a sudden stop (see, Gildersleeve v Leo, 274 AD2d 547; Maschka v Newman, 262 AD2d 615; Mundo v City of Yonkers, supra; Migdol v Striker, supra). Furthermore, an award of summary judgment would be inappropriate in this case since Wilkerson has not appeared for court-ordered examinations before trial, thereby depriving the plaintiffs and codefendants of an opportunity to obtain evidence pertinent to the cause of the accident (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Hoxha v City of New York, 265 AD2d 379; Lantigua v Mallick, 263 AD2d 467; Campbell v City of New York, 220 AD2d 476; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Randhawa v. Otero
S.D. New York, 2024
Torres v. Mamadou
S.D. New York, 2021
Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp.
57 A.D.3d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Nelson v. Bestway Coach Express
36 A.D.3d 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Thoman v. Rivera
16 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc.
12 A.D.3d 390 (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)
DiGiulio v. Kirch
5 A.D.3d 625 (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)
Ruzycki v. Baker
301 A.D.2d 48 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ryo v. Minerva
290 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 A.D.2d 781, 715 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-v-colonial-transit-inc-nyappdiv-2000.