Chatman v Polin Transp. Corp.

[*1] Chatman v Polin Transp. Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 50760(U) [23 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on April 22, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 22, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, J.
570224/08

Danta Chatman, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Polin Transportation Corp. and Luis D. Martinez, Defendants-Respondents, -and- Pamela P. Ramsay, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant Ramsay appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), dated October 22, 2007, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), dated October 22, 2007, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant Ramsay. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant Ramsay met her initial burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment by submitting unrefuted evidence that her vehicle was stopped when co-defendants' vehicle struck her in the rear. In such circumstances, responsibility presumptively rests with the rearmost driver, unless the operator of the rear vehicle can come forward with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Garcia v Bakemark Ingredients (E.), Inc., 19 AD3d 224 [2005]). Here, co-defendants' opposing submission, which did not include a sworn statement of facts by defendant Martinez, the operator of the rear vehicle, was insufficient to raise a triable issue or to rebut the presumption that co-defendants were negligent. Even considering the information in the police and MV-104 reports relied upon by co-defendants, "it can be safely concluded that discovery would not result in any disclosure defeating [defendant Ramsay's] entitlement to summary judgment" (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 272 [1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 22, 2009