Migdol v. Striker
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rosa v. Colonial Transit, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Flood v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Heal v. Liszewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Singh v. Sanders (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Martin v. Pullafico (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Torres v. Pierpont (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Demenagas v. Yan Hok Lai (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Phillips v. Cohn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Hanak v. Jani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Mundo v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Sorrentino v. Riemer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Tann v. Herlands (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated September 26, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As a general rule, a rear-end collision with a stopped automobile 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 forth with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see, Gambino v City of New York, 205 AD2d 583; Parise v Meltzer, 204 AD2d 295; Aromando v City of New York, 202 AD2d 617).
In this case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant failed to keep a safe distance under the existing traffic conditions and whether the plaintiff suddenly stopped, thus contributing to the accident (see, DeCosmo v Hulse, 204 AD2d 953; Varsi v Stoll, 161 AD2d 590; Glick v Hittner & Sons, 111 AD2d 150). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.