Quaglietta v Ziegler

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Quaglietta v Ziegler 2019 NY Slip Op 34539(U) May 9, 2019 Supreme Court, Rockland County Docket Number: Index No. 031127/2018 Judge: Sherri L. Eisenpress 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. 031127/2018 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2019 11:06 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2019 ' SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ------------------------------------------------------------x DEBORAH L. QUAGLIETTA and MICHAEL A. QUAGLIETTA, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: 031127/2018 STACY B. ZIEGLER, (Motion # 1) Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------x Sherri L. Eisenpress, A.J.S.C. The following papers, numbered 1 through 4, were considered in connection with Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for an Order, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3212, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue of liability: NUMBERED PAPERS NOTICE OF MOTION/AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT/EXHIBITS A-F 1-2 3 AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION 4 AFFIRMATION IN REPLY Upon a careful and detailed review of the foregoing papers, the Court now rules as follows: This action was commenced by Plaintiffs on February 28, 2018, with the filing of the Summons and Complaint through the NYSCEF system. Issue was joined as to Defendant Stacy B. Ziegler with the filing of Defendant's Answer through the NYSCEF system on April 25, 2018. This personal injury action arises out of a three car accident which occurred on November 12, 2017, on Route 202, approximately 100 feet west of Theills Mt. Ivy Road, in the Village of Pomona, Rockland County. Plaintiff Deborah L. Quaglietta testified that she was in a stopped vehicle which was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Stacy B. Ziegler. Plaintiff 1 [* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 031127/2018 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2019 11:06 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2019 te stop for testifie d at her examin ation before trial that she was at a comple s to 10 seconds strike the vehicle in front of when she felt a "jolting " which caused her car to move forward and her. At the momen t of impact , her right foot was on the brake. she brough t Defend ant Stacy Ziegler testifie d at her examin ation before trial that was red. She specific ally her vehicle to a stop behind Plaintif f's vehicle because the traffic light in time and that the traffic testifie d that she never saw the plaintif f's vehicle moving at any point five seconds, she testifie d light had not yet changed before the acciden t. After approx imately know what caused this to that her foot must have slipped off the break and that she does not of her vehicle and the rear happen . She admits that when contac t was made betwee n the front accide nt report contain s of Plaintif f's vehicle , Plaintif f's vehicle was stoppe d. Moreover, the police traffic and the next thing she a statem ent that "Drive r 2 [Ziegle r] states that she was stoppe d in knew she was driving into Vehicle 2 [Quagl ietta]." her vehicle Plaintif f moves for summa ry judgm ent as to liability on the ground that vehicle , as eviden ced by was comple tely stoppe d when it was struck in the rear by Defend ant's ed in the police report. In the testimo ny of all parties , as well Defend ant's admiss ion contain of fact because Defend ant opposi tion thereto , Defend ant conten ds that there is a triable issue t her own vehicle to a stop, did not know the plaintif f's vehicle was stoppe d before she brough a vehicle in front of her may thus she was encoun tered with an unfores eeable situatio n where that there is absolu tely have stoppe d abrupt ly withou t any warnin g. In Reply, Plaintif f argues short." no eviden ce which suppor ts the conten tion that Plaintif f "stoppe d her claim or The propon ent of a summa ry judgm ent motion must establi sh his or as a matter of law, tender ing defense sufficie nt to warran t a court directin g judgm ent in its favor Giuffrid a v. Citiban k Corp., sufficie nt eviden ce to demon strate the lack of materia l issues of fact. Prospe ct Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, et al., 100 N.Y.2d 72, 760 N.Y.S.2d 397 (2003) , citing Alvarez v. the motion withou t regard 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1986) . The failure to do so require s a denial of A.D.2d 250, 760 N.Y.S .2d to the sufficie ncy of the opposi ng papers. Lacaqn ino v. Gonzal ez, 306 2 [* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2019 11:06 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 INDEX NO. 031127/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2019 533 (2d Dept. 2003). However, once such a showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating material questions of fact requiring trial. Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124, 711 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2000), citing Alvarez, supra, and Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1985). Mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations unsupported by competent evidence are insufficient to raise a triable issue. Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 525 N.Y.S.2d 793 (1988); Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980), 427 N.Y.S.2d 595. Most recently, the Court of Appeals in Rodriquez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 2018 N.Y.Slip Op 02287 (2018), has held that "[t]o be entitled to partial summary judgment, a plaintiff does not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of defendant's liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault." It is well-settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, unless the operator of the moving vehicle can come forward with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident. See Smith v. Seskin, 49 A.D.3d 628, 854 N.Y.S.2d 420 (2d Dept. 2008); Harris v. Ryder, 292 A.D.2d 499, 739 N.Y.S.2d 195 (2d Dept. 2002)]. Further, when the driver of an automobile approaches another 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. VTL § 1129(a) ("The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon the condition of the highway."); Taing v. Drewery, 100 A.D.3d 740, 954 N.Y.S.2d 175 (2d Dept. 2012). Drivers must maintain safe distances between their cars and cars in front of them and this rule Imposes on them a duty to be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages. Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D .2d 269, 271, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545 (1st Dept. 1999). In the instant matter, Plaintiffs have met their burden upon summary judgment 3 [* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 031127/2018 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2019 11:06 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 ,. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2019 ' since Ms. Quaglietta was at a complete stop when her vehicle was struck in the rear by Defendant's vehicle. In opposition thereto, Defendant has failed to raise a triable issue of fact or present a non-negligent exC1:Jse for the happening of the subject occurrence. Based upon Defendant's own testimony wherein she states that her foot must have slipped off the brake, and that she never saw Plaintiff's vehicle move before the accident, there is no evidence to support her claim that Plaintiff had "stopped short," the causing Defendant to strike the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Pla intiffs' Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall appear in the Trial Readiness Part for a conference on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court o Dated: New City, New York May 9, 2019 To: All parties via NYSCEF 4 [* 4] 4 of 4 otion # 1.

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.