Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Martin v. Pullafico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 1, 2000

272 A.D.2d 305; 707 N.Y.S.2d 891; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4866

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Thoman v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Chepel v. Meyers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Torres v. Mamadou (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
Insinga v. F.C. General Contracting (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Flood v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Sawhney v. Bailey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Coleman v. Hayes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Rosa v. Colonial Transit, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated August 4, 1999, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes the duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forth with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see, Power v Hupart, 260 AD2d 458; Danza v Longieliere, 256 AD2d 434; Mundo v City of Yonkers, 249 AD2d 522).

In this case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the individual defendant failed to maintain a safe distance and whether the plaintiffs’ vehicle stopped suddenly, thereby contributing to the accident (see, Migdol v Striker, 215 AD2d 358; Tann v Herlands, 224 AD2d 230; DeCosmo v Hulse, 204 AD2d 953). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.