Rivera v Sachdeva

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rivera v Sachdeva 2019 NY Slip Op 34876(U) November 7, 2019 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: Index No. 32905/2018E Judge: John R. Higgitt 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. 32905/2018E FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/12/2019 02:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 NYSCEF: 11/12/2019 EW YORK SUPREME COU RT - COUN TY OF BRO RECEIVED X Mtn. Seq . # ill. ---------------------------- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO RK COUNTY OF BRONX: PART U -------------------------------------------------------------------X Index NQ. 32905/201 SE FLORES RIVERA, CINUE, et ano - aga inst - Hon. JOH R. HIGGITT. A.J.S.C. SACHDEVA, RAJAN --------------------------------------------------------------------X The fo ll owi ng papers numbered 1.§. to 25 in the NYSCEF Sy tern were read on thi s motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (LIABILITY). noticed on October 2, 2019 and dul y submitted as on the Motion Calendar of October 2,, 2019 o. 29 NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 16-23 Notice of Motion - Exhibits and Affidavits Annexed Notice of Cross-Motion - Exhibits and Affidavits Annexed Answering Affidavit and Exhibits Replying Affidavit and Ex hi bits Fi led Papers Memoranda of Law Stipul ation s i 24 25 Upon the fo regoi ng papers. plaintiffs· motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liabil ity for causing the ubj ect acc ident and dismissal of defendanr s first arfirmati ve defense alleging plaintiff Rivera· s culpable conduct is granted. in accordance with the annexed decision and order. ., Hon. Dated: I 1/07/2019 Check one: o Case Disposed in Entirety til Case Still Active [* 1] Motion is: Gra nted o Denied til o GIP o Oth er 1 of 5 Check if app opria c Schedu le Appearance u Fiduciary Appoi ntment o Referee Appo intm ent o Sett le Order o Sub mit Order 1· FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/12/2019 02:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 INDEX NO. 32905/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX: l.A.S. PART 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------X CIN E FLORES RIVERA and RUBI VASQUEZ Plaintiffs, - against - DECISION AND ORDER Index o. 32905/20 l 8E RAJAN SACHDEV A, Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X John R. Higgitt, J. Upon plaintiffs ' September 11 20 19 notice of motion and the affi rm ation, and exhibit submitted in support thereof; defendants September 11 , 2019 affirmation in oppo ition· plaintiffs ' September 25 20 19 affirmation in reply; and due deliberation· plaintiffs ' motion for partial sw11mary judgment on the issue of defendant ' s liability for causing the subject accident and for dismissal of defendant ' s first affirmati ve defense alleging plaintiff Rivera' s culpable conduct is granted. This is a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries plaintiffs sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on August 25 2018. In suppo11 of their motion, p laintiffs submit the pleadings the police accident report and the transcripts of the parties ' deposition testimony. P laintiff Rivera testifi ed that he was topped due to traffic when his ' vehicle was suddenly struck by defendant s vehicle. Defendant testified that he was traveling in the left lane on the Bronx Ri er Parkway when he started looking to his right w here an accident had occurred. Once he looked forward to his direction of travel, he noticed that plaintiffs veh icle was stopped, but, he was unab le to stor> . in time to avoid the accident. [* 2] 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 32905/2018E FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/12/2019 02:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2019 The police accident report also contain the following party admission b defendant: " he was distracted by an uninvol ved accident, not noticing that the traffic in front of him had stopped he rear-ended [plaintiffs' vehicle]. " "A rear-end collision with a stationary vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence requiring judgment in favor of the stationary vehicle unless defendant proffers anon-negligent ' explanation for the failure to maintain a safe distance ... A driver is expected to drive at a sufficiently safe speed and to maintain enough distance between himself [or herselfJ and cars ahead of him [or her] so as to a oid collisions with stopped vehicles, taking into account weather and road conditions" (LaMasa v Bachman, 56 AD3d 340 340 [1st Dept 2008]). A rear-end collision constitutes a prima facie case of negligence against the reaimost driver in a chain confronted with a stopped or stopping the vehicle (see Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553 [1st Dept 20 l OJ). Vehicle and Traffic Law § l l 29(a) states that a ··driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, ha ing due regard for the speed of such ve hicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the hi ghway ' (see Darmenlo v Pac{fic Molasses Co. , 81 Y2d 985 , 988 [I 993] . Ba ed on the plain language of the statute a violation is clear when a driver follows another too close) without adequate reason and that conduct results in a collision ( ·ee id). In opposition to plaintiffs pr-ima fac ie bowing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of defendant ' s liability defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendant asserts that at the time of the accident plaintiffs' vehicle made a sudden the accident. 2 [* 3] 3 of 5 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/12/2019 02:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 INDEX NO. 32905/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2019 However, defendant offers no evidence upporting his sudden-stop argument. In any event generally a claim that the driver of a rear-ended vehicle made a sudden stop is insufficient to constitute a non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Bajrami v Twinkle Cab orp. , 147 AD3d 649[1 st Dept 2017]). Thus, the general rule regarding liability for rear-end accidents ' has ,' been applied when the front vehicle stops suddenly in slow-moving traffic ; e en if the udden stop is repetitive; when the front vehicle, although in stop-and-go traffic, stopped whit an intersection· and when the front car stopped after having changed lanes'· (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 271 [1st Dept 1999]). Additionally, ' [a] dri er of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing condition to avoid colliding with the other vehicle ' ( iah-A babio v Hunter 78 AD3d 672 672 [2d Dept 201 O]). Given that defendant admitted at his depo ition to being distracted and not noticing that plaintiffs ' vehicle had stopped before the colli sion , and that defendant provided no affidavit explaining why he did not keep a reasonably safe distance from ' plaintiffs ' vehicle defendant's sudden stop argument is without merit. As to the aspect of plaintiffs' motion seeking dismi s al of defendant ' s first affirmative defense alleging plaintiff Rivera' s comparative fault, plaintiff Rivera made a prima facie showing that he bears no such fault (see Soro-Maroquin , Melle!, 63 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2009]). Because defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact the aspect of plaintiffs ' motion seeking dismissal of defendant's first affirmative defense alleging plaintiff Rivera' s comparative fault is granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the aspect of p laintiffs motion for pa1tial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability is granted ; and it is further 3 [* 4] 4 of 5 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/12/2019 02:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 INDEX NO. 32905/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2019 ORDERED, that the aspect of plaintiffs' motion seeking the dismissal of defendant' s fi affirmative defense is granted, and that defense is dismissed. The parties are reminded of the November 22, 2019 compliance conference before the undersigned. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: November 7, 2019 4 [* 5] 5 of 5

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.