Posy v Scuderi

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Posy v Scuderi 2017 NY Slip Op 33436(U) May 15, 2017 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: Index No. 604323/16 Judge: Randy Sue Marber 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. 604323/2016 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/18/2017 0 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/19/2017 SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU Present: HON. RANDY SUE MARDER JUSTICE TRIAL/IAS PART 10 X ----------------- vANES SA POSY, Plaintiff, Index No.: 604323/16 Motion Sequence ... 01 Motion Date ... 03/09/17 -againstDANIELLE L. SCUDERI, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Papers Submitted: Notice ofMotion ...........................x Upon the foregoing papers, the Plaintiff's unopposed motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 on the issue of liability, is decided as hereinafter provided. ' The instant action involves a rear-end motor vehicle collision on September 1, 2015 betw~en the Plaintiff's vehicle and the vehicle ·driven by the Defendant, DANIELLE L. SCUDERI. The collision took place at the intersection of Merrick Road . and Atlantic Boulevard in Hempstead, County of Nassau, Stat~ of New York. According to the Plaintiff, her vehicle came to a gradual and complete stop at a red traffic light prior to being struck by the vehicle operated by the Defendant (See Plaintiff's Affidavit, sworn to on February 16, 2017, annexed to Plaintiff's Motion as 1 [* 1] 1 of 4 .. INDEX NO. 604323/2016 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/18/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/19/2017 Exhibit "C"). The Plaintiff claims that she sustained sever,e and permanent personal injuries as defined by§ 5102 (d) of the Insurance Laws of the ~tate of New York. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted when there are no triable issues of fact. Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361 {1974). The goal of summary judgment is to issue find, rather than issue determine. Hantz v. Fleischman, 155 A.D.2d 415 (2d Dept. 1989). In the instant matter, neith~r party denies that the front of the Defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the Plaintiffs vehicle. Indeed, no opposition has been submitted by the Defendant. Rear-end collision cases create a primafacie case of liability with respect to the party who collides with the vehicle in front of it. This pr~ma facie liability imposes a duty of explanation upon the operator of the rear vehicle ·to rebut the inferences of ·;·· negligence by providing some non-negligent explanation for the collision. Crisano v. Comp Tools Corp., 295 A.D. 2d 393 (2d Dept. 2002); Brothers v. Bartling, 130 A.D.3d 554 (2d Dept. 2015). The instant matter involves a vehicle stopped at a red traffic light. No evidence is submitted that there is a dispute of these facts an~ nothing is submitted I ,. alleging that the Plaintiffs car was in motion at the time of the accident. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a primafacie case of liability with respect to the operator of the rearmost vehicle, imposing a duty of explanation on that operator to excuse the collision either through a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the 2. [* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/18/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 INDEX NO. 604323/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/19/2017 vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on a wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause. Filippazzo v. Santiago, 277 A.D.2d 419 (2d Dept. 2000). When a driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his or her vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle. Id.; see Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1129 (a); Brothers v. Bartling~ 130 A.D.3d 554 (2d Dept. 2015); Gallo v. Jairath, 122 A.D.3d 795 (2d Dept. 2014). This rule imposes upon drivers the duty to be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages. Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269 (1st Dept. 1999). In the instant matter, the Defendant has not submitted any opposition, warranting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the ·issue ofliability. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue · of liability, is GRANTED. This matter shall proceed to trial on the issue of damages at _ the conclusion of discovery on damages; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties are directed to appear m the. Preliminary Conference Part of this Court on June 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. for a Preliminary Conference; and it is further ORDERED, that counsel for the Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on counsel for the Defendant, pursuant to CPLR § 2103 (b) 1, 2 or 3 within ten (10) days 3 [* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 604323/2016 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/18/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 -1, .J , RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/19/2017 -~- of the date of this Order. PROOF OF SERVICE MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT PRIOR TO JUNE 13, 2017. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court. DATED: Mineola, New York May 15, 2017 ENTERED ' Hon. Randy Sue Marber, J.S.C. MAY 18 2017 ' HON.IWOl&WMER couiis&it~sUNory . rF/CE •. ·Ii 4 [* 4] 4 of 4 .

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.