Niyazov v. Bradford
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Emil Norsic & Son, Inc. v. L.P. Transportation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Rainford v. Han (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Sooklall v. Morisseav-Lafague (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Lampkin v. Chan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Edwards v. Cheezwhse Com, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Batashvili v. Veliz-Palacios (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Conroy v. New York City Tr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Han v. BJ Laura & Son, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Monteleone v. Jung Pyo Hong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Benedikt v. Certified Lumber Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- MIC Property & Casualty Corp. v. Avila (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Lundy v. Llatin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Voskin v. Lemel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Campbell v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Hakakian v. McCabe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Morrison v. Montzoutsos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Ahmad v. Grimaldi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Katz v. Masada II Car & Limo Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Klopchin v. Masri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Levin v. Chaudhry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Abramov v. Miral Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered May 17, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability against the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to provide a non-negligent
In support of their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs came forward with evidence that their vehicle was stopped in traffic for 10 to 15 seconds before it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. In addition, they submitted a police accident report containing the defendant’s admission that her foot slipped off the brake pedal, causing the collision (see Vaden v Rose, 4 AD3d 468 [2004]; Kemenyash v McGoey, 306 AD2d 516 [2003]; Guevara v Zaharakis, 303 AD2d 555 [2003]). In opposition, the defendant failed to come forward with any evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ prima facie case. The affirmation of the defendant’s attorney was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Browne v Castillo, 288 AD2d 415 [2001]) and the defendant’s purported need to conduct discovery did not warrant denial of the motion, since she had personal knowledge of the relevant facts (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 [1999]). Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion (see Russ v Investech Sec., supra; McGregor v Manzo, supra; McKeough v Rogak, supra; Leal v Wolff, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.