Rosales v Bouhadana

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rosales v Bouhadana 2021 NY Slip Op 30759(U) March 1, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 507204/2019 Judge: Lara J. Genovesi 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. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2021 INDEX NO. 507204/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2021 l{i;IJ ~1 • .. At an IAS Term, Part 34 of the Supreme ·qf ~~e~ State of New York, held in and for {her /County of K ings, at the Courthouse thereof at 360 Adams St., Brooklyn, New York on the 1st day of March 2021. 'court 1 PRES EN ~: I HON. LARA J. GENOVESI, J.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( MARIO ROS I LES, Index No.: 507204/2019 Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER againstSIMON BOurADANA and IRJS BOUHADANA, I Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( ~i: Recitation, as lequired by CPLR §22 19(a), of the papers considered in the review of motion: NYSCEFDoc. No.: CJ Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and (.) Affidavits (Afflrmations) Annexed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 24,25 .. Opposing Affi~avits (Affirmations)_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 29 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Introduction Plainti f, Mario Rosales, moves by notice of motion, sequence number two, pursuant to c J LR § 3212, for summary judgment on the issue of liability and for such other relief as he court deems proper. Defendants, Simon Bouhadana and Iris Bouhadana, o pose this motion. 1 of 6 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 INDEX NO. 507204/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2021 Background This ac~ion involves a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 22, 2019 at approximatEily l 1:24am. It occu1Ted at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Avenue MinBrooklyll;, New York, which is controlled by a traffic signal. Plaintiff Mario Rosales ("Rosales") states by affidavit that his vehicle was stopped at tl1e red control signal for apprOxima:tely 15 seconds when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendant (see'NYSCEF Doc. # 26, Rosales Aff., ~ 4, 5). Defend3.nt Iris Bouhadana ("Bouhadana") state_s by affidavit that she was driving 011 Bedford A~enue fllld stopped behind plaintiffs vehicle, which was also stopped, at the red traffic control signal (see NYSCEF Doc.# 30, Iris Bouhadana Aff., traffic control ~ignal ~ 3). After the turned green, botl1 vehicles began to move forward, when plaintiff came to a "sudden aild abrupt stop," a11d defendru1t's vehicle struck plaintiffs vehicle in the rear (see id. at~ 4-7). Disc11ssion Su111mary Jutf.gme11t "[T]l1e proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to ' demonstrate th_e absence of any material issues of fact'' (Stonehill Capital 111gmt., LLC v. Bank a/the W., 28 N.Y.3d 439, 68 N.E.3d 683 [2016], citing Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, 501N.E.2d572 [1986]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (se(;' 2 2 of 6 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 INDEX NO. 507204/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2021 Chiara v. Town a/New Castle, 126 A.D.3d 111, 2 N.Y.S.3d 132 [2 Dept., 2015], citing Vega v. Resta~i Const. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 965 N.E.2d 240 [2012]; see also Lee v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 162 A.D.3d 628, 78 N.Y.S.3d 239 [2 Dept., 2018]). Once a n1oving party l)as made a prim a facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form . sufficient to es'tablish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see Fairlane Fin. Corp. v. Longspaugh, 144 A.D.3d 858, 41N.Y.S.3d284 [2 Dept., 2016], d_iting Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, supra; see also Hoover v. New Holland N Am., Inc., 23 N.Y.3d41, 11N.E.3d693 [2014]). "A rear~end collision with a stopped -or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to re~ut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision" (Xin Fang Xia v. Safi, 177 A.D.3d 823, 113 N.Y.S.3d 249 [2 Dept., 2019]; see also Ordonez v. Lee, 177 A.D.3d 756, 110 N.Y.S.3d 339 [2 Dept., 2019]). A plaintiff does not need to demonstrate the absence of their own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment as to a defendant's liability (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 31N.Y.3d312, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898 [2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 02287]). However, the issue of a plaintiffs Comparative negligence. may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant1s af::l;innative defense of comparative neglls;ence (see Poon v. Nisanov, 162 A.D.3d 804, 808, 79'N.Y.S.3d 227 [2 Dept., 2018]). 3 3 of 6 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 INDEX NO. 507204/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2021 In the c'.ase at.bar, plaintiffs n1et the prima facie burden showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's affidavits demonstrate t4at the ·vehicle operated by Rosales was struck in the rear by the vehicle operated by Bouhadana. Both plaintiff and defendant contend that plaintiff's vehicle was at a complete stop at the time of the accident, and defendant admits to striking the rear of plai11tiffs vehicle ~1th the front of his vehicle. Plaintiff demonstrated that he was not negligent in the happening of the accident. Plaintiff has further established that the actions ·of def~ndant driver were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff's vehicle \.vas at: a complete stop when it \Vas struck in the rear by defendant vehicle (see generally Poo'n v. Nisanov, 162 A.D.3d 804, supra; see also Ortiz v. Welna, 152 A.D.3d 709, 58 N.Y.S.3d 556 [2 Dept., 2017]). In oppqsition, defendants failed to rebut plaintiffs prima facie showing. Defendants contend that plaintiffs affidavit is insufficient to meet their burden herein because it is further s~lf-serving; conten~ this is unavailing (see generally CPLR 3212(b)). Defendants that the motion is premature because the parties have not been deposed. However, "[a]:party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to deffionstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence. The mere hope or speculation.that evidence sufficient to defe~t a motion for summary judgment may be ' uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion" (Rungoo v. Leary, 110 A.D.3d 781, 972 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2d Dept., 2013] [internal citations omitted]; see Coelho v. bzy ofNew York, 176 A.D.3d 1162, 112 N.Y.S.3d 270 [2d Dept., 2019]). Here, the defe~dantS: do not specify how further discovery will contest the facts submitted 4 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2021 INDEX NO. 507204/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2021 by plaintiff. "~D]efendants failed to submit an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge of the facts so as to raise a triable issue of fact as to wl1ether there was a nonnegligent e:xplanation for the happening of this rear-end collision, or wheth~r the plaintiff's culpable cbnduct contributed to the happening oft11e accide~t" (Service v. McVoy, 131A,D.3d1038, 16 N.Y.S.3d 283 [2 Dept., 2015]). Further,' defendant contention that plaintiff suddenly stopped his vehicle prior to the accident, d6es not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for defendant striking the rear of plaintiffs vehicle with his (see Baron v. Murray; 268 A.D.2d 495, 702 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2 Dept., :i020]), Defendant was "under a duty to maintain a safe distance" between her vehicle an4 plairitiff's vehicle, and the "failure to do so, in the absence of an adequate, norutegligent explanation, constituted negligence as a matter of law" (see Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833, 486 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2 Dept., 1985]).. Conclusio11 Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability is granted. This constitutes the decision and order of this case. ENTER: ara J. Genovesi J.S.C. " 5 5 of 6 . [*FILED: 6] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 INDEX NO. 507204/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2021 To: Samm1tl1a RadJevich, Esq. Rubenstein & Rynecki, Esqs. Attorneys for ['laintiffs 16 Court Street, Suity 1717 Brooklyn, Ne'l' York 11241 James F. Butler & Associates Attorney for Defendant P.O. Box 9040 300 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 260 Jericho, NY 11753 6 6 of 6

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.