| Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Lines Tr., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03152 [50 AD3d 712] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Allstate Insurance Co., Plaintiff, v Liberty Lines Transit,Inc., et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Renee Brockington, Respondent, v County ofWestchester et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.) Larry Brockington et al., Respondents, v Countyof Westchester et al., Appellants, and Lakeisha Howard et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)Natasha Brockington, Respondent, v County of Westchester et al., Appellants, and LakeishaHoward, Respondents. (Action No. 4.) (And Another Action.) |
—[*1] David Horowitz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven J. Horowitz of counsel), for Renee [*2]Brockington, respondent in action No. 2. Myron George Lasser, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y., for Larry Brockington, Olivia Brockington,and Stella Martinez, respondents in action Nos. 3 & 4. Mead, Hecht, Conklin & Gallagher, LLP, Mamaroneck, N.Y. (Elizabeth M. Hecht ofcounsel), for Lakeisha Howard and Renee Brockington, defendants-respondents in action Nos. 3& 4.
In five related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, which were joinedfor trial, the County of Westchester, Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., and Robbie Paul King,defendants in action Nos. 2, 3, and 4, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, WestchesterCounty (Bellantoni, J.), entered April 12, 2007, which granted the renewed motion of LarryBrockington, Olivia Brockington, and Stella Martinez, the plaintiffs in action No. 3, and NatashaBrockington, the plaintiff in action No. 4, for summary judgment on the issue of liability, andgranted the separate motions of Renee Brockington, the plaintiff in action No. 2, and LakeishaHoward, as limited administratrix of the estate of Albert Stewart, and Renee Brockington,defendants in action Nos. 3 and 4, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
Initially, we reject the appellants' contention that the Supreme Court erred in considering therenewed motion of the plaintiffs in action Nos. 3 and 4 because their previous motions for suchrelief had been denied. The prior orders did not determine the merits of the issues raised and didnot constitute the law of the case (seeMeekins v Town of Riverhead, 20 AD3d 399, 400 [2005]).
"A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence againstthe operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference ofnegligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision" (Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45AD3d 736 [2007]; see Klopchin vMasri, 45 AD3d 737 [2007]; Nieves v JHH Transp., LLC, 40 AD3d 1060 [2007]). In oppositionto the demonstration by the respective movants of their prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law, the appellants failed to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut the inference of theirown negligence and to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment was properlyawarded on the issue of liability.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkinand Leventhal, JJ., concur.