Opinion
Index No. 52883/2019 Sequence No. 1
08-03-2020
MILDRED GARCIA and MAXIMO GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN CONNOR DEFLIESE and ROBERT DEFLIESE", Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION & ORDER
HON. CHARLES D. WOOD, JUSTICE
New York State Courts Electronic Filing ("NYSCEF") Documents Numbers 17-28, were read in connection with plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment, on the issue of liability.
This is an action for alleged serious personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on August 2, 2018, at approximately 9:30 PM on the northbound Hutchinson River Parkway in Pelham. Plaintiffs stopped their vehicle due to an accident that occurred immediately in front of them, at which point they were struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated by defendants.
Upon the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows:
A proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a "prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986]; Orange County-Poughkeepsie Ltd. Partnership v Bonte. 37 A.D.3d 684, 686-687 [2d Dept 2007]; Rea v Gallagher. 31 A.D.3d 731 [2d Dept 2007]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the motion papers (Winegrad v New York University Medical Center. 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1986]; Jakabovics v Rosenberg. 49 A.D.3d 695 [2d Dept 2008]; Menzel v Plotkin. 202 A.D.2d 558, 558-559 [2d Dept 1994]). Once the movant has met this threshold burden, the opposing party must present the existence of triable issues of fact in admissible form "sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim or must demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form; mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" (Zuckerman v New York. 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 [1980]; Khan v Nelson. 68 A.D.3d 1062 [2d Dept 2009]). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court is "required to view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and to draw every reasonable inference forth the pleadings and the proof submitted by the parties in favor of the opponent to the motion" (Yelder v Walters. 64 A.D.3d 762, 767 [2d Dept 2009]; Nicklas v Tedlen Realty Corp.. 305 A.D.2d 385, 386 [2d Dept 2003]). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to existence of a triable issue (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital. 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986]).
Generally, Vehicle and Traffic Law §1129(a) imposes a duty on all drivers to drive at a safe speed arid maintain a safe distance between vehicles, always compensating for any known adverse road conditions (Ortega v City of New York. 721 N.Y.S.2d 790 [2d Dept 2000]). "When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and to maintain control of his vehicle and use reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle" (Young v City of New York. 113 A.D.2d 833, 834 [2d Dept 1985]). "A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision" (Fernandez v Babylon Mun. Solid Waste. 117 A.D.3d 678 [2d Dept 2014]). In other words, proof of a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle that strikes the forward vehicle and imposes a duty upon said offending vehicle to come forward with admissible proof to establish an adequate, non negligent explanation for a rear-end collision (Parise v Meltzer. 204 A.D.2d 295 [2d Dept 1994]; Moran v Singh. 10 A.D.3d 707, 708 [2d Dept 2004]); Cerda v Parsley. 273 A.D.2d 339 [2d Dept 2000]). In addition, where a vehicle is lawfully stopped, there is a duty imposed on the operators of vehicles traveling behind it in the same direction to come to a timely halt (Carter v Castle Elec. Contr. Co., 26 A.D.2d 83 [2d Dept 1966]). The operator of the moving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision because he or she is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to a reasonable, non-negligent cause (Carter v Castle Elec. Contr. Co., at 85).
The sudden stop of a lead car is one of the non-negligent explanations of a rear-end collision, because the operator of that car has a duty to avoid stopping suddenly without properly signaling to avoid a collision "when there is opportunity to give such signal" (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1163; see id.; Colonna v Suarez. 278 A.D.2d 355, [2d Dept 2000]); Taveras v Amir. 24 A.D.3d 655, 656 [2d Dept 2005]) "A conclusory assertion by the operator of the following vehicle that the sudden stop of the vehicle caused the accident is insufficient, in and of itself, to provide a nonnegligent explanation" (Gutierrez v Trillium USA. LLC. 111 A.D.3d 669, 670 [2d Dept 2013]). But, "stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead" (Gutierrez v Trillium USA, LLC, 111 A.D.3d at 671). However, the frontmost driver also has the duty to avoid stopping suddenly or slowing down without signaling to avoid a collision (Martinez v. Allen. 163 A.D.3d 951, 952 [2d Dept 2018]).
Here, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is supported by evidence that establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs' submissions include the summons and complaint, deposition testimonies of the parties involved in the subject accident, and a copy of the police report (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 21&22).
Specifically, plaintiff, Mr. Garcia testified at his deposition that he was traveling in the right lane when he observed the vehicle traveling in front of him collide with the vehicle traveling in front of it (NYSCEF Doc No. 22 pg. 11). He heard the screeching of the brakes of the vehicles in front of him, so he applied his brakes, and brought his vehicle to a complete stop, (id pg. 12). He testified that his vehicle did not come into contact with the vehicle in front of him. A few seconds after bringing his vehicle to a complete stop, the vehicle traveling behind him, which he described as a "Jeep", struck him in the rear (id at pgs. 13 and 17).
Based upon this record, including plaintiffs testimony, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment, unless defendants present a nonnegligent explanation for the motor vehicle accident.
In opposition, defendants' counsel argues that the rear-end accident occurred due to plaintiffs' vehicle coming to a sudden stop, ie. their "sudden stop" defense. However, this conclusory assertion by defendant is insufficient, in and of itself, to provide a nonnegligent explanation (Gutierrez v Trillium USA. LLC. 111 A.D.3d 669, 670-71 [2d Dept 2013]). For instance, a nonnegligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause (Binkowitz v Kolb, 135 A.D.3d 884, 885 [2d Dept 2016]).
Where the lead driver is forced to brake and stop suddenly without striking the vehicle in front due to that vehicle coming to a sudden stop, there is no basis for imposing liability on that driver (Carhuavano v J & R Hacking, 28 A.D.3d 413, 414 [2d Dept 2006]).
While Mr. Garcia, as the operator of his motor vehicle, had a duty to avoid stopping suddenly without properly signaling to avoid a collision, the sudden stop defense by defendants cannot be available here where the record shows that was no opportunity for Mr. Garcia to give such a signal, and thus defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence (VTL §1163; Taveras v Amir, 24 A.D.3d 655, 656 [2d Dept 2005]).
Defendants have also failed to oppose plaintiffs' argument that defendant driver failed to maintain a safe distance behind plaintiffs' vehicle immediately prior to the accident.
Further, to the extent that defendants argue that the motion is premature as discovery is needed, "[a] party contending that a motion for summary judgment is premature is required to demonstrate that additional discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to oppose the motion are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant" (Reynolds v Avon Grove Properties. 129 A.D.3d 932, 933 [2d Dept 2015]).
Under these circumstances, it has not been demonstrated that additional discovery might reveal something helpful to the determination of liability, and does not provide a basis pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) for postponing judgment (Morrisaint v Raemar Corp., 271 A.D.2d 586 [2d Dept 2000]). The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion (Cajas-Romero v Ward, 106 A.D.3d 850, 851 [2d Dept 2013]). However, "where knowledge is the key fact at issue, and [is] peculiarly within the possession of the movant himself, summary judgment will ordinarily be denied", which is not the case here (Di Miceli v Olcott, 119 A.D.2d 539 [2d Dept 1986]).
Thus, based upon the applicable case law, defendants fail to offer a non-negligent explanation for their vehicle rear ending plaintiffs' vehicle sufficient to raise a triable question of fact (Williams v Spencer Hall. 113 A.D.3d 759, 760 [2d Dept 2014]).
Further, New York no longer mandates that plaintiff must disprove comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals has clarified that Article 14-A of the CPLR contains New York's codified comparative negligence principles, and that "a plaintiffs comparative negligence is no longer a complete defense to be pleaded and proven by the plaintiff, but rather is only relevant to the mitigation of plaintiffs damages and should be pleaded and proven by the defendant" (Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312 [2018]). "To be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of defendant's liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault" (Rodriguez v City of New York, supra). Thus, to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in establishing his or her prima facie case to the extent that the opposing party is negligent and a proximate cause of the incident (Edgerton v City of New York. 160 A.D.3d 809 [2d Dept 2018]).
For the reasons as discussed above, and of those advanced by plaintiffs, plaintiffs have demonstrated that defendants were negligent and a proximate cause of the accident.
Therefore in light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further
ORDERED, that the issue of serious injury will be tried during the damages phase of the trial, and that the granting of this summary judgment motion does not preclude further determination that plaintiff may or may not have sustained serious injury as defined by Insurance Law §5102[d]; and it is further
ORDERED, that the parties are directed to appear in the Compliance Conference Part in Room 800 of the Westchester County Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., White Plains, New York 10601, at a time and place so designated by that Part.
All matters not herein decided are denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.