Leslie v Hamilton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Leslie v Hamilton 2024 NY Slip Op 31494(U) April 8, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 515743/2022 Judge: Heela D. Capell 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. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 At an IAS Te.rm~.Part 19j of the·Suprem,e (:oqrt·,of Jhe State, ofNew· Yor~:_·held fo and for the·Co:i,IQ.ty of Kings_,.at the Coµfthouse, .at 360 Adams· Street, Brdokiyn,-NewYotk, Qn. the gt1i day·pfApdl,20~4.. . P;R: E S..E-N T": HON~.FiEELA;D. CAPEL,L. Justice. - .. ~ ~ - - - ~ .. •!"""~ ........ .,,. ........ ____ .. ________ ,;____.:,_..., ...........-~ .. - - - - - - - - · . ; . • • ~ ... ..:..-=-=-';:'~--:-:--x·. OMAR LESLIE; Plainti~ tndex N6.-: 515743-/2022 ERNESTJ. ~AMILTON-, Mot Seq_-fl i RYDERTRUCK RENTAL, INC.,. CLEAN~TEX SERVICES .. ... ,.INC .... . . . . '• . ____ ..... _ ... _ pe.fen.~ants~• ------- • ; - - · · - - - ..- • - - - - ~ -...... •. . . . . . +ii_........ _.......................... _ _ _ •• •• . - - .. - - • ·x ··The--.fo.llowi.ng e•filed papers read l1erein: Notice ofMotioil/Order .to. Show Cause/ Petition/Cross. Motion ~d ·. Affidavit~ (Affirmation~) Annexed.______ __......__ Opposing Affid~vits (Affiiniatiorts) .... · _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Affidavits/ Affirmations. ii) Reply· --------'-- -----, Otb¢r· Papers: . 25, 26. 28~30 32 .34 · Upori ~he fc)te~pirtg p~pers.. in-this .Personal inj_µry ·action, plaintiff Omar Lesiie (''Plaintiff'} .m9ves for ·ari. order_; puts~arit tp CPLR 3212· (a), gpi,ntjng- P,faintiff" $.uinmE!o/ ju.dgment on the "iss.ue of H~bflity as ·against Defendants £me st J, Hamilton C:'Haihiltori ";) ~nd cieen,.;Tex- ·.l..,LG .s/h/a Ole~,tfe~ Servi¢es> ·1nc~. ·eCieari-·t~i")- and. ~triki~g 0 Defe11dants' affirmative defense ·all~ging ·compar-i!tive.-negligence/cµJ.pable cohdµct on the, p~tt ofPJain,tiff. ···---··•······----·--··· -··---······---------- [* 1] 1 of 8 INDEX NO. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 ':Background -Plaintiff commenced this negligence ~H:ticm, ,alle$1rtg:.he. suffered various.inJuries-as· a re_$ult·of a:tear~end co_llisiori between his vehicle. an SlJV•. al)d {l vehic\e ow11ed by ~Y der Tr'uck-Rental .Inc. ('.'Ryder'~) artd opetaJed by Hamilton-. Hamtltqn , Ryder and Clean~ Tex interpose d a joint answer, raising Plaintiff' s alleged contribut ory negligen ce as an affinnati ve defense :(NYSCE F Doc No, 6).. The action was discontin ued ~s against Ryder putsu~nt to a stipulation bttween the parties, clated.I)e cember 4c, .2()23', which was filed on December 7,.2023 (NYSCEF Doc:No. ~l)._Plai ntiffnow n:iovesfo tsllmniar yjudgnie nt as , the ·operator ofthe ·vehicle, and .Clean:-Texj, .against the: r.~rn{iinfng defehdan~~- HamHton . . . J.-Iamiltqn' s, employer (co Hectively, "Defendants1>} on the issue of liability~ and. to strike the affirmati ve defense of,compa rative/co ntributor y ,iieglig!!n,be. At th~ -µme of the· accident,_ Ha:miltotrwas employed by Clean~Tex:asa delivery driver rutdwas operating a truck"th~t. ·had been leased from Ry d~r (NYS CEF' 'noc No. 30 1 Hamilto n tr at .11, lines ·12:.] 6; _~t 1fi,_ lines 22-25; at 17, Hnes:2~3). 'During his _dep9sition,- Plaihtiff testified thafthe aq;id~µt.qccµrred on October~ i2-1 202 l, while he Was ·in his .Yf!hicle -ti.-a:velin:g northl.J:otuid on _Flatbush Avenue, at the intersection ofFlatbu·sh Avc:nue:and Avenue H in Brooklyn (NYSCEF Doc No. 29, LesJie _tr_af30, Hnes l7-2~;_a t32,lines lQc,15)..-Thetraffic was:-light a(t;hattiffte{id. a,t32~ line~5,. 9). Whifo &pproxhrrate1y 300 feet away fro'm. thtdntcts cction, PlaiQfrff observed that .the ttaffi_c ligh( at the· iritersecticm- was ·green (id. at 33, lines l~-25f ·when. Plaintiff was·approximat_ely 10.0 -fe.et away ~om the intersection. he -obsetved the traffic. light turn to 2 [* 2] 2 of 8 INDEX NO. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 yellow, at-which point he slowed oown his vchicle~a~d then.brought itto a crn:nplet¢ stop (id; at 34 ~ lines 8-1 T, 1S-16}. Acc0,rdirrg to Pfaintiff, ·the vehicle, in front oLh_is SUV ,proceeded throµgh- the intersectipn on the. yellow light, and Plaintiffs vehicle: came to a. . .gradual stop at.the-1nters~ction. Thr~e to four:seconds later1 Plaintiff'·s vehicle-was struck .from b.ehindbythe vehicle.operatedby·JJ:amilton {id,. :at.36, line~;,4;.~0. 2J-2J), the traffic light was red at the titne of the accident (id; &f 37, lines 3-6). Plaiptifftestjfied that J1e was _stopped before the ·crosswalk .prior to the accident, .and that the impact- ·of the accident pushed his .vehicle into the crpsswalk (ld,. at.'40, Jines 4-8). Discussion S.unfm.afy judgrrie_ntis.a dra.$tic-remedy and may be granted only \¥hen itis . cleat that no triable issue ·of fact ex.ists1 arid the mm;ing party is requited to make a.:pi:imafacie showing_ of (:lntitlement tojude;mentas i1111attetof.Iaw :(see, Trustees of Columbia Univ. b~ the.- City 9/ N.Y. vD 1Agpslin,o S11:Petmqrkets1_ Inc;; 36 NY3d. 69, 73-74 [2020]; Alvarez v Prospect. Hosp.l. 68 NJ2d 320_, 3.24 [1986]; see,. also Zuqkennqny City of N!!W York,. 49NY2d 55.7 [f9':80]). The papers suomitte\;l in the context of th_e· summary Judgment application arealWaysviewed in the lightlllost favorable.to the party opposinS:,tli.e; m!;)tion (se:e MarintfMidland.Bank; NA. ii-Dino &-,1.rtte'sAutoma(ic Transmissi~n ,Co., 16,8 AD2d 6J O[2d.Dept 1990]). Ifthe init:ialprj,npfacie: showing:has· been met, the burden tbenshifts . . . . to the op_posit11r,party to prese~t sufficient evidence to e'stabJish the exi~tep.9e_ofmaterial ,issues _offact requiting a trla1_. "LM]ete. concfosfonS_i expressions -of.hope or unsubstantiated allegation•s or ,asserti9ns: axe ihs11fJ:icient" (Z,,µckei:man; 49-·NY:ld at 562i,se:e also Vega, v Restani Const!\ Corp,, 18 NY3d499, 503 [2012], quatfogAlyarez, 68 NY2d at324}'.-3 [* 3] 3 of 8 INDEX NO. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 a -,;A Plaintiff iu- negligence ·action moving.for summary judgm.~pt oll th¢-issue of liability must estabHsb.; prima facie~ t:Ii~t the Defendant btea~hed a ··duty· owed to tbe Plaintiff and-that .the D.efepdartt's:neg1ig~·ncewas-aprmdmate cause ·of the alleged:irtjuries~' {Tsygan_ash·v AuroMallFl~et ]efgt. 1 Inc~!, 163 AD3d 1033, 1033'-10'34 [2d.I)ept2018 ])>"A driver of a ·vehicle approaching anothet-vehicle from the rear is- requir~d- to rnajnt_aiµ, ~ "f.easortably safe distance: and rate of spe_ed .under the prevailing ctmditfons to-avoid colliding v.;ith. the other vehicle7' (NSZ:ah-4.babio v Bimt(:j.,:,- -78 AD3d 612, 672 [2d -Dept 201 O]; see Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1129 [a]),- Thus, "'a re::u--end collisfon wi.th-a- stopped .or stopping vehicl~ establishes a prirrrn facie case ofnegligence. on the part: of the operator of the rear vehicle!' (Drakh v Levin, rii Al)3.d 1Q84. l.OS5 .(2.d Dept 2014]; see Newfeld v J,;JtdwoodAmbu(aru;e ·~ O;gigen Se;ry,,.lrzc._~- 204 AD3d'Kl 3; _814 t2dJJ~·pt 20221;-Saw~d v Murray, 109 AD3.d 464,464 .[2dDept 2013]). Thi_s presumpti9n can 'be·.te\mtted'.~Ith a non-hegHgent explanation for the t_eannost driver's .hitting the front vehicle, such as. mechanical niilur¢, lli:Iavoid:i"ble skidding ·.on: a Wet· pavement, or another reas:onable expianation( see Miller v Steinb'erg_, I64AD3_d 492, 493: [2d Dep\ 20 LS]). Here, the Plaintiff ·has esta_blishe.d his- pi'_ima facie entitlement Jo ju~gmenl as a matter oflaw- on the issue-ofliabiHty. throughbis .deposition testimony, whk,h demonstrated that the Plaintiff was stoppe_d at a :traffic 1ight tbr . at least three:to fobr seconds before his -vehicle was stru'~k in the :rear by· the: vehicle operated by Hamilton (see, Brue~ V' Takahata, 2_t9AD3d448;_ 4.49 0[2ct·:bept 2023]; An v Abba_te, 21} .4D34 89( [24 Dept2023j). Thus, & presumption of Defendantf liability is ·ctea:te.d ;,is It -is, undisputed that the vehicle ·driven 4 [* 4] 4 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 INDEX NO. 515743/2022 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 by Hamilton struck the rear:-of P1aihtiff::; v_ehicle· while :jt wa.s staJionary (see· NYSCEF Doc· No. 3_0, HallliUon tr at-31, lines·~-6; at 31,_Hnes .-9-12; at 33, lines 7-21_; at 34, line 15); Itj opp_osition; 'Defendants .argue that Plainti'ff-s .negligent c,irlving cau:sed the coll~sic;,rt:, Spec'jfically, Defend,ant;:; Gontend thritPlaintiffstopped suddenl)' after ~ppearing to:proceed through the yellow tra:ffic:light, and at thentomertt of:impact~ Plaintiff•s-vehicle was stopp·ed beyond.the ·areawhete vehicles are. required to stop (NYSCEFDoc No, 32; 'l'f 7). In. support of this contention, Defendants rely ori.' Harni'iton's .peposit_i01~ tes.timony. Hamilton testified:that on thenightoftlieacddent, he was driving hjs Vehicle.~t the:.speed of 20-25 miles per hour on·Ftatbush Avenue, toward _the· intersection ofFlatbushAvenue and Avenue H _(NYSCEF Doc .N,d. 3 Q~ ·Hamilton tr at 27, Jw.es 9, 22-21:). Abotit-a .qu,arter qf a block away ftom the intersection, Hamiiton>observed thfl:t'tbeJ.ight at the' i1itersection was_ gr~en _(id:_at 2 8,. lines 3, 13-14). Proceeding about 2(hniies -per]1our!,Harnilton noticed a black SJJV (Pla,intiff":s fehicle) in front ofhls-vehicle {id, --at28, lines tW-:-25; at ·29~. lines 2:-3). According' to Hamilton, _his vehi9le -was _a car-le11-gth: c.1~$tanqe pehibd the black SUV (id. at 2 9~ lines 22-25). He claimed 'that- he was ''right on the• light'' wheh the traffic light at the intersection turned from green to: yellow,· while_ P1ai:µti ff s·-yehicle was "about_to p~ss through the light" (ia1. at 30, lines :9:..14). A(that point, Hamilton-claimeji thathe tapped.his foot on the- bn\ke (id. at3 o,Jines 15-1,9). Right after he tapp:~d .his bral<e; th,e- br!:lk~ lig]J,t~, or'Plaintiffs SUV fo front of:liirn ca.me -on,(id. ;at -31~ lines 2--6). A;ccordfog; to Hallltlton, P faintiff :wa_s. ~'pr¢tty ~1iuch atth~. i:ntersecti.on at-tJiaflirii;.~" when .lie .(Plaintiff) dstopp~:d .and then he started: again and then.lie stopped ag;1inT (id: at :fL_ lites _5-61 22-23}. Fuuniltpri then e~pi aine_d: •: [~J~U, .he .[PJaintiff] di4n 1t $t(?p; 'He slowed-dowil and-then I gµess hewas g~ing. ' ' s [* 5] 5 of 8 INDEX NO. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 h,>_cliang~dhis,mi_n,d a,nc:I sf(jpp¢~'-''(id. to't,.roceed-tfuoughtlte yeilow ii-ght and iben:! .gue_ss . ' . at3J,)ine$. 9-1"2) . Upon observing the :PHi1nti-ffs:v~h_iGlc; s:io:w·dqw~;Hari"iiltpn'~iaimed·be hit-the.brakes) butsubs·equently took hisJoot tifftliebt~ke EJ.ij:er:·see_ing;,the brak~·fights'on Plaintiffs Vehicle go _off (id.''at ~-2~:li_nes: 17;.:z:2,. 25; ~t 33; lihes-2~6). Then,,While the-ttaffic lightW.asJilttllyellow; ·-and while. traveling_ aphe speed or'~pp.roxima.tely 15' miles ,pet,hour, _c.,l wlµ(;:h _p.oint 'h(: (H~tlton). observed Plaint1ffs- brake lights--_go 9n··aga4t; _Hamilton . . ~ . ~pplied his· -own brakes ·a;gain:~ Hamilton. testified. that_ at the time .lie _a,ppli_ed the/bial-ce~? :aJtlioug!t his vehicle. was still appro~i.n:ia\ely :a_car'-I:1 iengtli away .:frorn-Plaintiff·s_stn,~ lt .·skidded appro:xbnately ten feet, cpmingO'into: corit~ct-w.ith-.·the-rear of Plaintiff"s·vebicl~. which was·stationacy ·at.the time ("fd. at.33i:•ltnes_ 7~21; ·at ,3:4, line l!i). ·AftertJle'impact occurred; Hamilton plaime_d Plaintiff's -veh~cle passe4 fue.- _c:ro~swalk 8:t the intersecfiotJ.~- wltile the-:fro.nt ·of Hamiltort's vehicle was atthe start- ofthe crosswalk (id, at 3'5~ lines .1 T- Contrary to,d¢fendants'.- ~sscri:io~ they h;we faileµ Jo:rai~e-an issue o('f~ct. Irt'factt :a.'.iimilton;·s ·testbno!).y corrribor~tes-flaintifP_s---positipn that:,his '!'ehicie was sfowing'.down. as it ·approached. the -intersectipn, ·rath~r ·than -.accelerat~ng, ·-and ~aro:c- to a.'.con\piete. -$to}), $econds ·b_efore.-heing stti.1¢k in-the'reat b'ythe vehicle- opera:tedby- Ham1lt(ln. iJ.efendaI1ts'· r-e:liance·ori. McAyoy y Efghamri, '(2i9 At,-jd. 604 _(2d ·Dept 2023])J$:nnavai:liiig, a1rth.e ·b~ferida,rit in that case wa:~ ~pleto estabiish-tha, Pl¢nuff"accelcra!ed in.an ait.empncfbe11t a_yell_oW traffic ligµt and-theri 'tarri:e:to a sudden stopt·whk h did not ·occurhe:re Jtd. al'.60.5). 'Evert if' Jiarn:ilton,~ s ··.testimony ·ha_d ·es"tablish~d tllat ·Pl~ntiff-s. vehic1~- stopp-ed' aorµpt~y, ·s~an.ding '1lone~ a suddet.i stop is ''Ii1su'fficientto, raise ~ triable issue. o_f 'fact ·as to-~heth!!f [* 6] 6 of 8 INDEX NO. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 there· was a nonnegligent expfanation ·for· the collision.''· ( Catailzaro· v Ede t.J!., .· 1'.72. AD3 d 995,997 [2d:Dept 2019], .citing Edgertonv Cityo[New York, l60AD 3d:809-, 811 [2018]; J].obayo v 4,ghqabdul) ,109 AD3cl 892, '8:93,. [;2'd Dept 2013]). under the prevailing traffic condition$ do Sudden stops.-foreseeable not· tais.e. a lriabfo issue:- of fact as to·.the hoQ., negligent explana(ion for the' collision because th,ey mu,·st he. anticip_a~d by the driver foll owing ano,ther vehide, wh9 has· a duty to JI1aintain a :safe. distance·itom the driver ·ahead (see Williams v Isaac, 224 AD34. 719,. 719 [2d Dept 2024], c,itm.g Nsiph-:Ababip;• 78 AD3d at 672;A,rs1an:v Costello, 164 AD3d 140$·, 1409-i410 [2dDept20l 8]; Waide v AR/Fleet L_T, 143 Al}3d 975, 976 [2d Dept 201.6]; Taing v Drewe,y~ 100 AD3d 740: 954 [2d.Dept 2012]; see·-a/so-Ve_i)foly and Trafflc Lflw.J 129 [a]). Thus, Defendants hav~ failed.to_provide a ''hon.,negiigent explamitiori:' fot the collision to rebut the·'.inference -of·rtegligence (see gener4llJi; Tutrani v County of Siiffolk~ J.0 NY3d 906, -908 [2008:] [holding "(t)hat a negligent d.rivenpightbe unable to stop his. 9r her vehicle in thne tq. avoid a collisi.cm with .a stopped vehicle (is}-a normal -or foreseeable consequence ofthe si_tuatioI1°created by the· (lead vehicl.e):"]). Adclitionally, the court· finds that the ·Plaintiffis· also entitled to "suriunar:y judgment di'smissing the defendants-' affinnativ.e .defense ·alleging comparative negllgenc.e/cu1pablc conducton his· p_art. ''[A] ·Pla_irttiff moving "fqr,: sµr111I).ary judgment dismi~sing a J)efendant' s. affirmative defens.e of comparative negligence may :seek to estabHsh comparative f4ult (Ne1~fe,ld, 204 AD3d at•Rl3~8J 4), Here; ,the p~ies' Jl.$ .~ matfor.o'f..lav,1" freedom from de.position testimony establishect :that. the' Pla.irtti:ff wii's 11ot. at.fault ih ·the: happeni11giof the acc;ident ($.¢e_Tenezacav S(ate of/few YOrk,. 220 AD3d,959, 9,61 (2dDept2023];Mahinud_ 7 __________ _____;.·,--·-·· --- ---··--• . .. __________________ .......,;. . _.,_..,_...__....... _ [* 7] .. . ,, .. ..;,, .... · ...............................-........-.. _·-·- .. ·•··. ··--. ·· ......... .. ,_ 7 of 8 , ,,,,' ........................-·-----.. ···"'·"-·"' .............-._._... ... ...... ,_ .,,. '' ''''' ·-····· .. ,. INDEX NO. 515743/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024 v Feng Ouyang, 208 AD3d 861 , 862 [2d Dept 2022]; Poon v Nisanov, 162 AD3d 804, 808 [2d Dept 2018]). In opposition, the Defendants have failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Conclusion Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (mot. seq. no. 1) for summary judgment as to liability in his favor as against Defendants, and for dismissal of Defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence is granted in its entirety . This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated : April 8, 2024 ~ -- ::,::: :z C') CJ> ::0 .,,g -' r:z 1"'1---1 -0 )> Q -c: 0-< ('"") r rn :::0 ::,::: -' 8 [* 8] 8 of 8

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.