From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joplin v. N.Y.C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 3, 2014
116 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-04-3

Nicholas JOPLIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondents.


Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 15, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion to renew plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and, upon renewal, denied plaintiff's motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to renew denied.

In its prior order, the court granted plaintiff's motion based on the undisputed evidence that plaintiff's car was stopped at an intersection when it was hit in the rear by defendants' vehicle. Defendants' motion for renewal should have been denied. The purported new evidence consisting of plaintiff's deposition testimony did not warrant a different outcome ( see Matter of Santiago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 A.D.3d 628, 925 N.Y.S.2d 500 [1st Dept.2011]; CPLR 2221[e][2] ). A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle is prima facie evidence of negligence on part of the operator of the moving vehicle ( see Renteria v. Simakov, 109 A.D.3d 749, 972 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept.2013] [affirmance of an order granting plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment in a case involving a rear-end collision] ). Defendants' evidence that plaintiff's vehicle suddenly stopped was insufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to their liability ( see Williams v. Kadri, 112 A.D.3d 442, 976 N.Y.S.2d 460 [1st Dept.2013]; Corrigan v. Porter Cab Corp., 101 A.D.3d 471, 472, 955 N.Y.S.2d 336 [1st Dept.2012] ).

There is no merit to defendants' argument that Maniscalco v. New York City Transit Authority, 95 A.D.3d 510, 943 N.Y.S.2d 486 [1st Dept.2012] and Calcano v. Rodriguez, 91 A.D.3d 468, 936 N.Y.S.2d 185 [1st Dept.2012] represent a change in the law that would have affected the outcome of the motion. We reject the argument because both cases were decided before Renteria. TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Joplin v. N.Y.C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 3, 2014
116 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Joplin v. N.Y.C.

Case Details

Full title:Nicholas JOPLIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 3, 2014

Citations

116 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
116 A.D.3d 443
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2335

Citing Cases

Morgan v. Browner

It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie…

Morgan v. Browner

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered December 29, 2014, which denied plaintiff's…