Okrotsvaridze v. Perez

Okrotsvaridze v Perez 2026 NY Slip Op 30707(U) February 27, 2026 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 519801/2024 Judge: Kerry J. Ward Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.5198012024.KINGS.001.LBLX036_TO.html[03/10/2026 3:45:52 PM] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2026 04:23 PM INDEX NO. 519801/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2026

At anIASTerm, Part J ofthe Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in at1d fm the County of Kings, at the Cmirthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York;.on the 2J1h day of February, 2026.

PRES ENT: HON. J(ERRY J. WARD, A.J.S.C.

ZAZA OKROTSV ARlDZE and ANNA DECISION/ORDER MAZANISHVILI, fodex No. : 519 80 1/2024 Plaint(ffs, Mot. Seq.: 1 -against- MATHEW B. PEREZ and RA YMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.; Defendants.

Plaintiff/counterclaim Defendant, Zaza Okrotsvaridze's, moves (mot. seq. 1) for summary judgement on the issue of liability pursuant to CPLR § 32 l2(b ). Defendants Mathew B. Perez and Rayrnour Furniture Company, Inc:, oppose the motion (NYSCEF Doc. 56).

Based on the papers before the Court, and upon due deliberation, this motion is hereby granted.

Background and Procedural Histonr On the evening ofJu\y 9, 2024, Plaintiff Okrotsvaridze was operatil1g a motor vehicle ov\li1ed by co-Plaintiff Mazanishvili. At the time of the subject accident, Plaintiff Mazanishvili was seated ih the front passenger seat ill the aforerrientione<:i vehicle (Exhi~it D, NYSCEF Doc. 44). Defendant Mathew B. Perez (hereinafter, "Defendant Driver") was operating . a tractor trailer ·owti.ed by.

Defendant Raymour~ s Furniture Company, Inc .. (Exhibit F, NYSCEF Doc. 46), According to Plaintiff Okrotsvaddze's depositiori, they were, traveling on the Van Wyck Expressway in the middle lane for five to. six rninutes when ·they were rear ended by the vehi de operated by Defendant Driver (Exl1i bit D, NYSCEF Doc 1 44): Plaintiff states that pi'icir to the inipact, there was a car driving en;atically that cut them off, causing Plaintiff Okrotsvaridze to slow the. vehicle. dow11 while travelin~ in the mjddle

Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Summons and Complaint with the Court on July 22, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 1). Plaintiffs filed an Ainended Complaint on September 12, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc, 5). Issue was joined when Defendants filed a Verified Answer October 4, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 8). On November 27, 2024, Defendants filed an A1nertded Vel'ified Answer with Counterclaim (NYSCEF Doc: 11 ). On February 21, 2025; ah Answer was served on behalf ofPlaintiff Zaza Okrotsvaridze on the Counterclaim (NYSCEFDoc. 14).

According to deposition testimony of Defendant Driver (Exhibit F, NYSCEF Doc. 46), all vehicles wete traveling in the middle lane at the time of the subject accident, with Plaintiffs vehicle posi ti onecl ahead of Defendant's trailer. Defend ant Driver testified that a black Tes Ia approached from: thele:it lane at a high rate of speed, and then abruptly merged from the left lane into the middle lane directly in front ofPlaintiff's vehicle. He further stated that there was no vehicletraveling in front of Plaintiffs vehicle at the time the black Tesla executed this maneuver. Defendant Driver testified that, upon perceiving that a co Hisio11 with P lainti ff' s vehicle was imminent he undertook evasive action to avoid impact, which caused his railer to veer pm1ially out of the middle lane (Id.). Although he main:tained that he had been traveling approximately 50 to 75 feet behind Plaintiff's vehicle and had applied his breaks prior to the collisio1i., he was tmable to prevent the impact. The pc1ssenger side front bumper of his tractor trailer ultimately struck the driver side rear bumper of Plaintiffs vehicle, According: .to the aimexed certified police ·report, Defendant Driver (VI) stated that he had been traveling behind Plaintiff Okrotsvmidze (V2) when an unidentifiecl vehicle cut in front of Plaintiff Okrotsvaridze (V2), causing Plaintiffto apply the brakes abniptly (Exhibit H, NYSCEF Doc.

48). Defendant Driver (Vl) then collided with tl1e rear of Plaintiffs vehicle (V2}. The report further it1dicates that Plaintiff was transported to a hospital for evaluation following the incident (Id.}.

Law and. Anal vs is Pursuant to CPLR 3 212; " [a] motion [for summaryjudgment] sllal t be granted if ... the. cause ofadio11 ... [1s] established sufticiently to warrant the court as a 1natter of Iav-., in directing jt\dginent in favor of any party" (see CPLR 3212 [b]; see a!so Roddguez v. Cf(Ji i>f'l../e11:• Yotk, 31 NY3 d 31 i (2 0 i8.]). The motion for summary judgment must also "show that there is no def~nse to the cause. of action"J/d.). The·party moving for summary judginent must make.a pril110fcicie showing that it is entitled tq summary judgment by offering ad111is$ib1e evidence demonstrating the alJ,:;ence of tiny

In the present case, Plaintiff Okrotsvaridze has established prima facie entitlement to stimmary judgment on the issue of liability, thfottgh deposition testimony and the certified police report, \Vhich attested that Plaintiff's vehicle was stopped on the Van Wyck Expressway in the middle lane fot five to six iti.inutes, when it was struck in the tear by Defendants' tractor trailer (see Odewlla , 1. Rodi"iguez, l65 AD3d 826 [2d Dept 2018]).

In opposition, Defendants failed to sufficiently rebutPiuintiff.s primajacie··case. Defendant Ddver's allegation that he was un~ble to stop in time or avoid Plaintiffs vehicle.due to the.erratic driving of a third 1 µnnamed vehicl~ on the highway, is i11sufficient to create. a.triable issue of fact.

D¢fendant avers in his deposition that upon observing that the impact with Plaintiffs vehlde; was imi11i nen t, he pressed ori his brakes in ah attempt to stop, but was unable to ava id the ccil li sion, even upon attempting an evasive maneuver. While sudden stops may constitute a non•negligent

2018]).

Moreover, Plaintiff does not have to be deemed free of liability to establish Defendants' liability as a matter oflaw (see Rodriguez v. City ofNew York, 31 N. Y.3d 312 (2018)). As Defendants' evidence does not raise a triable issue of fact as to their own liability for the accident, Plaintiff's summary judgment as to liability is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff/counterclaim Defendant's motion for summary judgement as to liability and for dismissal of the counterclaim is hereby granted .

The issues of damages and comparative negligence, if any , are reserved for trial.

This hereby constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER:

HON. KERRY J. WARD, A.J.S.C. Hon. Kerry J. Ward , A.J.S.C.