Opinion
2015-02833 Index No. 601901/14.
03-02-2016
Madiline R. McLAUGHLIN, respondent, v. Kevin P. LUNN, et al., appellants.
Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto, P.A., New York, N.Y. (Matthew W. Biondi of counsel), for appellants. Gregory A. Goodman, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for respondent.
Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto, P.A., New York, N.Y. (Matthew W. Biondi of counsel), for appellants.
Gregory A. Goodman, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered December 30, 2014, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied, as academic, their cross motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the emergency doctrine as an additional affirmative defense.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A plaintiff in a personal injury action who moves for summary judgment on the issue of liability has the burden of establishing, prima facie, both that the defendant was negligent and that he or she was free from comparative fault (see Thoma v. Ronai, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 737, 602 N.Y.S.2d 323, 621 N.E.2d 690; Matos v. Tai, 124 A.D.3d 848, 998 N.Y.S.2d 905; France Herly Bien–Aime v. Clare, 124 A.D.3d 814, 814, 2 N.Y.S.3d 557). Further, “[w]hen the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his [or her] vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” (Gaeta v. Carter, 6 A.D.3d 576, 576, 775 N.Y.S.2d 86; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]; Williams v. Spencer–Hall, 113 A.D.3d 759, 759–760, 979 N.Y.S.2d 157; Sayyed v. Murray, 109 A.D.3d 464, 970 N.Y.S.2d 279; Taing v. Drewery, 100 A.D.3d 740, 741, 954 N.Y.S.2d 175; Strickland v. Tirino, 99 A.D.3d 888, 952 N.Y.S.2d 599; Scheker v. Brown, 85 A.D.3d 1007, 925 N.Y.S.2d 528; Power v. Hupart, 260 A.D.2d 458, 688 N.Y.S.2d 194). 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, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence (see Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726; Drakh v. Levin, 123 A.D.3d 1084, 1 N.Y.S.3d 202; Hauswirth v. Transcare N.Y., Inc., 97 A.D.3d 792, 794, 949 N.Y.S.2d 154; Napolitano v. Galletta, 85 A.D.3d 881, 925 N.Y.S.2d 163). “A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, ‘sudden or unavoidable circumstances' ” (D'Agostino v. YRC, Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 992 N.Y.S.2d 358, quoting Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583, 583, 613 N.Y.S.2d 417; see Drakh v. Levin, 123 A.D.3d at 1084, 1 N.Y.S.3d 202).
Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff demonstrated, via her affidavit, that while completely stopped behind three other vehicles for 5 to 10 seconds at a red light at an intersection, her vehicle was hit in the rear by the defendants' vehicle. This evidence alone was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the defendants' vehicle, the defendant Kevin P. Lunn, and to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not negligent in the happening of the subject accident (see Billis v. Tunjian, 120 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 992 N.Y.S.2d 319; Moore v. Singh, 108 A.D.3d 602, 603, 969 N.Y.S.2d 146; Nozine v. Anurag, 38 A.D.3d 631, 632, 831 N.Y.S.2d 511). In opposition to that prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the accident, or whether the emergency doctrine applied to this case (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied the defendants' cross motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the emergency doctrine as an additional affirmative defense.