Balkaran v Shapiro-Shellaby

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Balkaran v Shapiro-Shellaby 2008 NY Slip Op 33657(U) March 4, 2008 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 7600/2007 Judge: Lucy Billings Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF BRONX PART 16 ~ C Case Disposed 0 Settle Order 0 ¢ Schedule Appearance 0 : ECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK NTY OF BRONX: Index N2. BALKARAN,PRAKASH -against- 0007600/2007 Hon ..LUCY BILLINGS SHAPIRO-SHELLABY,NATHAN Justice. Read on this motion, SUMMARY JUDGMENT LIABILITY The following papers numbered 1 to Noticed on June 29 2007 and dul s u b m i t t e t h e Motion Calendar ONX COUNTY ClERK!~ OFFICe its Annexed Answering Affidavit and Exhibits NO FEE Replying Affidavit and Exhibits xhibits Pleadings - Exhibit Stipulation(s) - Referee's Report Minutes Filed Papers Memoranda of Law Dated: _3_"---_.:....-:....::.-_ LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. LUCY BflUNGrS J.S,C, [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX: PART 16 --------------------------------------x Index No. 7600/2007 PRAKASH BALKARAN, Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER - against NATHAN SHAPIRO-SHELLABY and RICHARD SHAPIRO, Defendants --------------------------------------x LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.: Plaintiff sues to recover for personal injuries sustained July 16, 2006, when a vehicle operated by defendant ShapiroShellaby and owned by defendant Shapiro struck the rear of a vehicle operated and owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on liability, C.P.L.R. § 3212(b) and (e), on the grounds that defendants negligently caused the rear end collision and plaintiff was not negligent and did not cause it. Upon oral argument January 17, 2008, for the reasons explained below, the court grants plaintiff's motion. A rear end collision with a vehicle travelling or stopped ahead establishes a prima facie claim of negligence against the operator and owner of the vehicle travelling behind. v. Schoepfer, 30 A.D.3d 275 25 A.D.3d 451, 452 Ingredients (E.) Francisco (1st Dep't 2006); Woodley v. Ramirez, (1st Dep't 2006); Garcia v. Bakemark Inc., 19 A.D.3d 224 v. Ock Wee Leong, 16 A.D.3d 199, 200 (1st Dep't 2005); De La Cruz (1st Dep't 2004). To rebut the presumption of negligence, defendants, as the operator and ba1karan.109 1 [* 3] owner of the rear vehicle, bear the burden to present a reasonable explanation for the failure to maintain a safe distance behind the front vehicle other than Shapiro-Shellaby's negligence. Francisco v. Schoepfer, 30 A.D.3d at 276; Woodley v. Ramirez, 25 A.D.3d at 452; Mullen v. Rigor, 8 A.D.3d 104 Dep't 2004); Jean v. Zong Hai Xu, 288 A.D.2d 62 (1st (1st Dep't 2001) Here, the only rebuttal is Shapiro-Shellaby's explanation that he struck plaintiff's vehicle when it accelerated from a stop to 20 miles per hour and then "stopped suddenly for no apparent reason in moving traffic." Ex. A ~ 11. Aff. of Nicole R. Kilburg, Even accepting this version of facts as true, it does not provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear end collision by defendants' vehicle. A driver travelling behind another vehicle has a duty to maintain a safe distance behind the front vehicle, whether it is moving or stopped, to avoid a rear end collision in the event the front vehicle slows down or stops, even suddenly. Traf. Law § N.Y. Veh. & 1129(a); Woodley v. Ramirez, 25 A.D.3d at 452; Mullen v. Rigor, 8 A.D.3d 104; Malone v. Morillo, 6 A.D.3d 324, 325 (1st Dep't 2004); Figueroa v. Luna, 281 A.D.2d 204, 206 2001). (1st Dep't That duty includes taking account of the discernible traffic and street conditions. In fact, Shapiro-Shellaby also admitted that he followed plaintiff's vehicle in front of him for 20 minutes in stop and go traffic before hitting the vehicle. Therefore Shapiro-Shellaby had ample time to maintain a safe distance behind and avoid hitting plaintiff's vehicle in front, balkaran.109 2 [* 4] ,. whether it was moving or stopped. The fact that plaintiff stopped short is an insufficient explanation to raise a question as to either plaintiff's negligence or Shapiro-Shellaby's nonnegligence that would require a trial on negligence. Woodley v. Ramirez, 25 A.D.3d at 452-53j Mullen v. Rigor, 8 A.D.3d 104. § New York Vehicle and Traffic Law 1163(c) prohibits stopping a vehicle or suddenly decreasing its speed, "without first giving an appropriate signal." plaintiff's violation of § While 1163(c) would establish his negligence and potentially explain Shapiro-Shellaby's failure to maintain a safe distance behind, Shapiro-Shellaby did not rebut plaintiff's affidavit that his vehicle's brake lights and signals were functioning properly. Consequently, the court grants plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment against defendants on liability. 3212 (b) and (e). C.P.L.R. This decision constitutes the court's order. The court will provide copies to the parties' attorneys. DATED: March 4, 2008 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. LUCY BILUNGS J.S.C. ' balkaran.l09 § 3

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.