Lassiter v Munjuk

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Lassiter v Munjuk 2021 NY Slip Op 33840(U) January 13, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 521426/2017 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. INDEX NO. 521426/2017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2021 (f At an IAS Term, Part 34 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse thereof at 360 Adams St., Brooklyn, New York on the 13 th day of January 2021. PRESENT: HON. LARA J. GENOVESI, J.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X GLADYS LASSITER and DEIDRA WINDS, Index No.: 521426/2017 Plaintiffs, DECISION & ORDER -againstKATHARINA M. MUNJUK, Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: NYSCEF Doc. No.: Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 13-23 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 24 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 26 Introduction Plaintiffs, Gladys Lassiter and Deidra Winds, move by notice of motion, sequence number one, pursuant to CPLR § 3212, for summary judgment on the issue of liability and for such other relief as the Court deems proper. Defendant, Katharina Munjuk, opposes this motion. [* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 INDEX NO. 521426/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2021 Background This action involves a rear-end collision that occurred on October 3, 2017 on Rockaway Boulevard near the intersection of 182 Street, Queens, New York. Plaintiff Gladys Lassiter (Lassiter) was driving vehicle one, in which plaintiff Deidra Winds (Winds) was a passenger in the front seat. The vehicle was stopped at the red traffic signal. Lassiter and Winds testified that, while waiting at a red light at a complete stop, the front of a vehicle operated by the defendant, Katharina Munjuk (Munjuk), struck Lassiter's vehicle in the rear (see NYSCEF Doc. #18, Exhibit 4, Lassiter EBT at 14, 20; NYSCEF Doc. #19, Exhibit 5, Winds EBT at 12). Both plaintiffs were wearing seat belts at the time (see NYSCEF Doc. #18, Exhibit 4, Lassiter EBT at 12; NYSCEF Doc. #19, Exhibit 5, Winds EBT at 14). Munjuk testified that she recalls being involved in an automobile accident on October 3, 2017 (see NYSCEF Doc. #20, Exhibit 6, Defendant EBT at 11 ). She was traveling in the center lane on Rockaway Boulevard for about two minutes (see id. at 21, 22). While looking at the traffic ahead of her, she saw the Lassiter's vehicle about thirty to thirty-five seconds before the front part of her vehicle came into contact with the rear of the plaintiffs vehicle (see id. at 23-25). Before the collision her view of Lassiter's vehicle in front of her was unobstructed, and at the time of the collision her right foot was on the gas pedal (see id. at 26, 27). The plaintiffs annexed the certified police accident report wherein the defendant, vehicle 2, stated "SHE WAS TRAVELING IN THE SAME DIRECTION IN STOP 2 [* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 INDEX NO. 521426/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2021 AND GO TRAFFIC WHEN SHE REAR ENDED Vl" (see NYSCEF Doc. #22, Exhibit 8, Certified Police Accident Report). This action was commenced by the filing of the summons and complaint on November 3, 2017 (see NYSCEF Doc.# 1). Discussion Summary Judgment "[T]he 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 the absence of any material issues of fact" (Stonehill Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Bank of the W, 28 N.Y.3d 439, 68 N.E.3d 683 [2016], citing Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Chiara v. Town ofNew Castle, 126 A.D.3d 111, 2 N.Y.S.3d 132 [2 Dept., 2015], citing Vega v. Restani 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 moving party has made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish 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, 41 N.Y.S.3d 284 [2 Dept., 2016], citing Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, supra; see also Hoover v. New Holland N Am., Inc., 23 N.Y.3d 41, 11 N.E.3d 693 [2014]). 3 [* 3] 3 of 6 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 INDEX NO. 521426/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2021 "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 rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision" (Xin Fang Xia v. Saft, 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, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 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 defendant's affirmative defense of comparative negligence (see Poon 'v. Nisanov, 162 A.D.3d 804, 808, 79 N.Y.S.3d 227 [2 Dept., 2018]). In the case at bar, the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden. The testimonies of the plaintiffs and the defendant show that the Lassiter vehicle, in which Winds was a passenger, was struck in the rear by the vehicle operated by Munjuk. Both plaintiffs testified that their vehicle was at a complete stop at the time of the accident, and Munjuk testified that she had an unobstructed view of the plaintiffs vehicle thirty to thirty-five seconds before the front of her vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiffs vehicle. The plaintiffs also provided the certified police accident report which contained defendant's admission that she rear-ended the plaintiffs (see NYSEF Doc # 22, Exhibit 8, Certified Police Accident Report; see also Yassin v. Blackman, 188 A.D.3d 62, 131 N.Y.S.3d 53 [2 Dept., 2020]). Since Lassiter's vehicle was at a complete stop at a red traffic signal on 4 [* 4] 4 of 6 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 INDEX NO. 521426/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2021 Rockaway Boulevard, the plaintiffs demonstrated that they were not negligent in the happening of the accident, and the actions of Munjuk were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see generally Poon 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 opposition, Munjuk failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for her rearend collision sufficient to rebut the inference of negligence. Munjuk simply contends that the question of whether a sudden stop was made by the plaintiffs creates a nonnegligent explanation for her rear-end collision with the plaintiffs. This does not rebut the inference of negligence, because a defendant's allegation that a plaintiffs car stopped suddenly is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Baron v. Murray, 268 A.D.2d 495, 702 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2 Dept., 2000]). Munjuk was "under a duty to maintain a safe distance" between her vehicle and the Lassiter's vehicle, and the "failure to do so, in the absence of an adequate, nonnegligent 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]). 5 [* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 . NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 INDEX NO. 521426/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2021 Conclusion Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability is granted. This constitutes the decision and order of this case. ENTER· n. Lara J. Genovesi J.S.C. To: Yuliya Gonikman, Esq. Rubenstein & Rynecki, Esqs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 Court Street, Suite 1717 Brooklyn, New York 11241 Eric Greenberg, Esq. James G. Bilello & Associates Attorneys for Defendant 100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 500 Hicksville, New York 11801 6 [* 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.