Chang v Rodriguez

Chang v Rodriguez 2008 NY Slip Op 09720 [57 AD3d 295] December 11, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Calvin Chang et al., Appellants,
v
Jajaira F. Rodriguez et al., Defendants, and Youngsoo S. Lee et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Day & Associates, P.C., Great Neck (Eric S. Hack of counsel), for appellants.

Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola (Terrance J. Ingrao of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of a three-car collision, granted the cross motion of defendants Youngsoo S. Lee and Alamo Financing, L.P. (Alamo) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiffs were in the front vehicle when the middle vehicle, owned by Alamo and operated by Lee, struck plaintiffs' vehicle in the rear after having been struck in the rear by the third car, driven by defendant Rodriguez. In a chain-reaction collision, as here, responsibility presumptively rests with the rearmost driver, Rodriguez (see Mustafaj v Driscoll, 5 AD3d 138 [2004]). The police accident report includes a statement apparently made by defendant Rodriguez. This statement, which is the sole support for plaintiffs' contention that they raised a triable issue as to Lee's negligence, is hearsay when offered against defendants Alamo and Lee by plaintiffs, and thus was insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion (see Bates v Yasin, 13 AD3d 474 [2004]; Holliday v Hudson Armored Car & Courier Serv., 301 AD2d 392, 396 [2003], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 100 NY2d 636 [2003]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman JJ.