Opinion
11-10-2016
Christopher J. ZEDICK, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Stacia L. NANCE, David V. Knight, Defendants, Jim Mazz Auto, Defendant–Respondent, et al., Defendant.
William Mattar, P.C., Williamsville (Matthew J. Kaiser of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham LLC, Buffalo (Thomas P. Cunningham of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
William Mattar, P.C., Williamsville (Matthew J. Kaiser of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham LLC, Buffalo (Thomas P. Cunningham of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action after being involved in a three-vehicle rear-end collision with defendants Stacia L. Nance and David V. Knight. Plaintiff alleged that the rear-end collision was caused by the actions of the unknown operator of a lead vehicle owned by defendant Jim Mazz Auto (Mazz). Mazz moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against it on the ground, among others, that the actions of the operator of its vehicle did not proximately cause the accident. Supreme Court granted the motion, and we affirm.
“It is well settled that absent extraordinary circumstances ..., injuries resulting from a rear-end collision are not proximately caused by any negligence on the part of the operator of a preceding vehicle when the rear-ended vehicle had successfully and completely stopped behind such vehicle prior to the collision” (Burg v. Mosey, 126 A.D.3d 1522, 1523, 6 N.Y.S.3d 358 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff's vehicle came to a complete stop behind the Mazz vehicle before being rear-ended, and Mazz therefore established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). Plaintiff's reliance on Tutrani v. County of Suffolk , 10 N.Y.3d 906, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726 is misplaced inasmuch as the extraordinary circumstances of that case are not present here (see Paterson v. Sikorski, 118 A.D.3d 1330, 1331, 988 N.Y.S.2d 318 ; Schmidt v. Guenther, 103 A.D.3d 1162, 1162–1163, 958 N.Y.S.2d 844 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.