Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

McGregor v. Frank Manzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 17, 2002

295 A.D.2d 487; 744 N.Y.S.2d 467; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Rainford v. Han (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Niyazov v. Bradford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Johnston v. Spoto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Candela v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Lundy v. Llatin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Neidereger v. Misuraca (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Reid v. Rayamajhi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Steinmetz v. Collison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Taveras v. Amir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Russ v. Investech Securities, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Milskiy v. Solanky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Hart v. Town of North Castle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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, etc., the defendant Zulqarnain Shaker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 9, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

A rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and imposes a duty on him or her to explain how the accident occurred (see Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392; Gambino v City of New York, 205 AD2d 583). If the operator of the offending vehicle cannot come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the driver of the lead vehicle may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law. A claim that the driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence (see Levine v Taylor, 268 AD2d 566; Leal v Wolff, supra; Silverman v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 AD2d 833).

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, as the driver of the offending vehicle failed to come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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