Ziminski v.Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ziminski v.Rosenthal

276 A.D.2d 790, 715 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11004

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 30, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered [791] May 30, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is undisputed that the motor vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff was safely stopped behind three other stopped vehicles at a red light when it was hit in the rear by a truck operated by the defendant Gary Padin. Accordingly, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that he was not negligent (see, Cerda v Parsley, 273 AD2d 339; Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392), and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of negligence by offering a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see, Santarpia v First Fid. Leasing Group, 275 AD2d 315; Brady v Correctional Transp., 274 AD2d 404; Cerda v Parsley, supra). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered [791] May 30, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is undisputed that the motor vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff was safely stopped behind three other stopped vehicles at a red light when it was hit in the rear by a truck operated by the defendant Gary Padin. Accordingly, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that he was not negligent (see, Cerda v Parsley, 273 AD2d 339; Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392), and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of negligence by offering a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see, Santarpia v First Fid. Leasing Group, 275 AD2d 315; Brady v Correctional Transp., 274 AD2d 404; Cerda v Parsley, supra). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Ziminski v.Rosenthal, 276 A.D.2d 790, 715 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 790 (Ziminski v.Rosenthal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related