Buscema v Anam

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Buscema v Anam 2022 NY Slip Op 34209(U) December 9, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 450131/2018 Judge: Leslie A. Stroth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 450131/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/13/2022 12:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/13/2022 • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: 52 PART HON. LESLIE A. STROTH Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------. ---------X JOSEPH BUSCEMA, 450131 /2018 INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 08/11/2022 004 - V - HADI S. ANAM, METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL CENTER, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, JORGE L. FIGUEROA, DAWSHAWN C MORGAN, V. R. RIZZO-NIKOU, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. -------------------------·---~- ---X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 73, 74, 75: 76, 77, 78,79,80,81, 82, 83, 84, 85,~6. 87,88, 89,90, 91,106 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER) .Plaintiff Joseph Buscema (plaintiff) commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on September 27, 2016, when.his vehic;le was involved in a six-vehicle rear-end chain collision. Defendants Metropolitan Hospital Center, the City of New York, the Health and Hospitals Corpora!ion, and Jorge Figueroa (together, the City defendants) move for an order granting summary ., judgment in their favor and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against them. Neither plaintiff nor,the remaining co-defendants Dawshan Morgan or V.R. Rizzo-Nikou submit opposition to the motion. According to the police report provided by the City defendants, Hadi Artam's vehicle rear-ended the City-owned vehicle, which then rear-ended Morgan's vehicle, which then rear-ended Rizzo-Nikou's Exhibit J, NYSCEF doc. no. 86. Mr. Anam vehicle, and which. then rear-ended plaintiff's vehicle . .See ' . . . ' testified at his examinatio~ before trial (EBT) that he was traveling 30-40 miles per hour while leaving· . 10-15 feet between his vehicle and the City-owned vehicle, that the City"owried vehicle. in front of him had its brake lights on as it cam~ to a complete stop, and that only a couple of sec·onds passed between 450131/2018 BUSCEMA, JOSEPH Motion No. 004 [* 1] vs. ANAM, HADI S. Page·1 of 4 1 of 4 I FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/13/2022 12:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 INDEX NO. 450131/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/13/2022 when Mr. An~ applied his brakes and when he made contact with the City-owned vehicle.. See Exhibit K, Hadi Anam EBT Transcript~ NYSCEF doc. no. 87 at 28 :3-6, 32:4, 34:3-6, 46:2-13~ 4 7:22-25, and 48:811. . It is a well-established pnnciple that the '"function.of summary judgm.ent is issue finding, not issue determination." Assaf v Ropog Cab Corp., 153 AD2d 520 (1st Dept 1989), quoting Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.~ 3 NY2d 395,. 404 (1 ~57). As such~ the· prop<?nent of a motion· for summary ,judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show the abs~nce of any ~aterial is~ue of fact and the right to entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw. See Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 (1986); see also Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851 (1985). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of issues of fact. See Sillman, 3 NY2d at 404. Therefore, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to . . . . ' all favorable inferences that can be drawn. from the evidence submitted. See Dauman . . . . . . Displays, Inc. v . Masturzo, 16~ AD2<l 204 (1st D.ept 1990), citingAssqf, 153 AD2d at 52L Vehicle and Tr~ffic Law§ 1129 (a) requires that drivers maintain areasonably safe rate of speed, maintain control over the vehicle, and maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of them.• The Appellate Division, First Department has held that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima fade case of negligence on the part of the rear vehicle unless the driver of the colliding vehicle presents evidence sufficient ~o rebut the inference of negligen.ce. See De La Cruz v Ock Wee Leong, 16 AD3d 199 (1st Dept 2005). A presumption of liability lies with the rearmost driver in a.chain-reaction ' ' collision. See Ferguson vHonda Lease Trust, 34 AD3d 356 (1st D~pt 2006). "A claim that the lead vehicle stopped suddenly is ge.qerally insufficient to.rebut the presumption· of non-negligence on the part of the lead vehicle." Woodley v Ramirez~ 25 AD3d (internal. citations omitted). . 451·, 452 (1st .Dept 2006) . 450131/2018 BUSCEMA, JOSEPH Motion No. 004 · · [* 2] vs. ANAM, HADI S. Page 2 of 4 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/13/2022 12:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 INDEX NO. 450131/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/13/2022 The City argues that it is not liable for plaintiffs injuries, because the City-owned vehicle was not the ream10st vehicle in the chain-reaction. The City defendants argue that plaintiffs deposition establishes that the City-owned vehicle was not the vehicle directly behind plaintiffs vehicle and that the City-owned vehicle did not make any direct contact with plaintiffs vehicle. See Exhibit L, Plaintiffs EBT Transcript, NYSCEF doc.,no. 88 at 24-25. The City maintains that Mr. Anam is the party liable for plaintiffs injuries.' In support of its arguments, the City cites to a decision rendered by the Honorable Dakota Ramseur involving the same accident. See Troy Cornelius v Joseph Buscema, et al., Index No. 452251 /2020, NYSCEF doc. no. 85 at 2. In that decision, Justice Ramseur dismissed the complaint as against co-defendants Morgan, RizzoNikou, and Buscema, because their vehicles were in front of Mr. Cornelius's vehicle at the time of the accident. See id. Justice Ramseur also granted Mr. Cornelius summary judgment as against Mr. Anam on the issue of liability, finding that all vehicles except for his were stopped at the time of the collision, that he was the rearmost driver who triggered the chain reaction of the vehicles, and that he failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision. See id. Here, the City defendants have tendered sufficient evidence to show the absence of any material issue of fact as to their liability and have established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence sufficiently establishes that that the City-owned vehicle did not make contact with the plaintiffs vehicle, that the rear-mos_t vehicle was Mr. Anam' s, and that Mr. Anam has not provided a non-negligent reason for the rear-end collision. Such evidence warrants summary judgment in favor of the City I i defendants, as per Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1129 (a). Accordingly, it is hereby i- 1 The action was discontinued as. to Mr. Anam as per stipulation dated July 23, 2022. See NYSCEF doc. no; I 07. i I [* 3] 450131/2018 BUSCEMA, JOSEPH vs. ANAM, HADI S. Motion No. 004 Page 3of4 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 450131/2018 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/13/2022 12:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/13/2022 ORDERED that co-defendants Metropolitan Hospital Center, the City of New York, the Health and Hospitals Corporation, and Jorge Figueroa's unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted in their favor, and that the complaint and any cross-claims are dismissed as against those co-defendants; and it is further ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants: and it is ! fi.n1her ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that aU future papers filed ,vith the court bear the amended caption with the names of the City defendants removed; and it is further ORDERED that this action, including any pending motions, is transferred to a general IAS Part, as corporation counsel no longer represents any parties to this action; and it is further · ORDERED that counsel for the moving parties shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon the Cl~rk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141 B) and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119), who are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthou.~·e and County Clerk Proceduresfor Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh). This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 12/9/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: • CASE DISPOSED GRANTED , NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER . CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN · FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT • • Page 4 of4 450131/2018 BUSCEMA, JOSEPH vs. ANAM, HADI S. Motion No. 004 [* 4] ~ DENIED 4 of 4 OTHER REFERENCE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.