Williams v. Hamilton
Opinion of the Court
Defendant Romero established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when her car was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by defendant Hamilton, causing her car to strike Romero’s car. Romero submitted evidence showing that his car was stationary at the time of the accident (see Santana v Tic-Tak Limo Corp., 106 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2013]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiffs testimony that Romero stopped abruptly and failed to use his turn signal properly at an intersection prior to the collision fails to raise a triable issue (see Franco v Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, Ltd., 103 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2013]; Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553 [1st Dept 2010]; compare Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906 [2008]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.