New York Law Journal
  • Home
  • News
  • Decisions
  • Columns
  • Practice Areas
  • My NYLJ
  • Careers
  • Courts
  • Verdicts
  • Public Notices
  • Smart Litigator

Home > Decisions > CARLENE HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF, v. ADVANCE TRANSIT CO., INC. def-ap, GENERAL GLASS & METAL, L.L.C. def-res

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Decision

CARLENE HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF, v. ADVANCE TRANSIT CO., INC. def-ap, GENERAL GLASS & METAL, L.L.C. def-res

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

New York Law Journal

December 17, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •    

8831. CARLENE HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF, v. ADVANCE TRANSIT CO., INC. def-ap, GENERAL GLASS & METAL, L.L.C. def-res — Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York (Andrew P. Keaveney of counsel), for ap — Burke, Gordon & Conway, White Plains (Ashley E. Sproat of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about November 30, 2011, which denied defendants' Advance Transit Co. Inc. (Advance) and Franklin S. Lopez's motion to renew a prior order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about July 29, 2010, and for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff while she was a passenger in a vehicle owned by defendant Advance and operated by defendant Lopez when it was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant Joseph DiGerardo, Jr., the motion court properly denied summary judgment to defendants Advance and Lopez. Although a rearend collision with a stopped vehicle creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle (see Berger v. New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD3d 531 [1st Dept 2011]), summary judgment is not warranted where, as here, there are questions of fact as to whether the stopped vehicle was the proximate cause of the accident. There is evidence indicating that defendant Lopezs vehicle "suddenly swerved from the extreme right lane to the far left lane (across two lanes of traffic) and suddenly stopped short" just prior to the collision.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Most Viewed Articles

  1. Stop-and-Frisk Judge Relishes Her Independence
    •      
  2. Trial Founders on 'Personality Issues' Between Judge, Counsel
    •      
  3. Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices
    •      
  4. Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation
    •      
  5. City Defends Heavy Use of Stop-and-Frisk by Police Dept.
    •      
  • About NYLJ   |
  • Contact NYLJ   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media