Sawhney v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sawhney v. Bailey

13 A.D.3d 203, 786 N.Y.S.2d 490, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15491

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 203 (Sawhney v. Bailey) 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

Sawhney v. Bailey, 13 A.D.3d 203, 786 N.Y.S.2d 490, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2003, which denied the motion of defendants Bailey and Lily Transportation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although it is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a presumption that the operator of the moving vehicle was negligent (see Agramonte v City of New York, 288 AD2d 75 [2001]), issues may arise as to whether the driver of the forward vehicle stopped or slowed suddenly (see Martin v Pullafico, 272 AD2d 305 [2000]). Since there is conflict as to whether the driver of the truck suddenly slowed as he approached an overpass on a highway on which the truck was not permitted in the first place, the denial of summary judgment was appropriate. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2003, which denied the motion of defendants Bailey and Lily Transportation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although it is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a presumption that the operator of the moving vehicle was negligent (see Agramonte v City of New York, 288 AD2d 75 [2001]), issues may arise as to whether the driver of the forward vehicle stopped or slowed suddenly (see Martin v Pullafico, 272 AD2d 305 [2000]). Since there is conflict as to whether the driver of the truck suddenly slowed as he approached an overpass on a highway on which the truck was not permitted in the first place, the denial of summary judgment was appropriate. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 203, 786 N.Y.S.2d 490, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawhney-v-bailey-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack