| Quinones v Altman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02278 [116 AD3d 686] |
| April 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carlos A. Quinones, Appellant, v Charles Altmanet al., Defendants, and Darwin M. Taylor, Respondent. |
—[*1] Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 28, 2012, whichgranted the defendant Darwin M. Taylor's motion for summary judgment on the issue ofliability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was traveling in the middle lane of the westbound Belt Parkway whenhe observed a vehicle that was stopped perpendicular to the road in the middle and rightlanes. In response, he slowed the rate of travel of his vehicle. His vehicle was then struckin the rear by another vehicle. The impact propelled his vehicle into the left lane. A fewseconds after the initial impact, the plaintiff's vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicleoperated by the respondent, Darwin M. Taylor. The respondent stated that he wastraveling within the speed limit in the left lane when he observed the initial impact to therear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff's vehicle was "catapulted" into therespondent's path of travel approximately two car lengths ahead of the respondent. Therespondent applied his brake and veered to the right, but he could not avoid collidingwith the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle.
The respondent made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as amatter of law by demonstrating that he was faced with an emergency not of his ownmaking, leaving him with only seconds to react, and virtually no opportunity to avoid acollision (see Parastatidis vHolbrook Rental Ctr., Inc., 95 AD3d 975, 976-977 [2012]; Koenig v Lee, 53 AD3d567, 568 [2008]; Vitale vLevine, 44 AD3d 935, 936 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise atriable issue of fact as to whether the respondent's reaction to the emergency wasunreasonable, or whether any negligence on the respondent's part contributed to bringingabout the emergency (seeKenney v County of Nassau, 93 AD3d 694, 696-697 [2012]; Koenig vLee, 53 AD3d at 568; Lee vRatz, 19 AD3d 552, 553 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted the respondent's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is academic. Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman andCohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 35 Misc 3d 1205(A), 2012 NY Slip Op50575(U).]