| Hudgins-Russell v Sharma |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02901 [116 AD3d 1004] |
| April 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Francis Hudgins-Russell et al.,Respondents, v Balbir Chand Sharma et al., Respondents, and Junior Michel,Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Anselmo A. Alegria, White Plains, N.Y. (Andrew Barovick of counsel), forplaintiffs-respondents. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, N.Y.,of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant JuniorMichel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), enteredNovember 8, 2012, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Frances Hudgins-Russell was a passenger in a taxi that came into contact with therear of a vehicle operated by Junior Michel. Hudgins-Russell, and her husband suingderivatively, subsequently commenced this action against Michel, among others.
The Supreme Court properly denied Michel's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. "It is wellsettled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case ofnegligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle" (Tutrani v County of Suffolk,10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, however, theevidence submitted in support of Michel's motion failed to eliminate triable issues of factas to whether Michel was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and whether suchnegligence caused or contributed to the collision. In particular, Michel submitted thedeposition testimony of the taxi driver, who stated that the roadway was covered by snowand ice, and that just prior to the accident, Michel's vehicle abruptly changed lanes,directly in front of the taxi, and then came to a sudden stop (see Tutrani v County ofSuffolk, 10 NY3d at 908; Markesinis v Jaquez, 106 AD3d 961 [2013]; Martinez v Martinez, 93 AD3d767, 769 [2012]).
Since Michel did not sustain his prima facie burden, the Supreme Court properly[*2]denied his motion, regardless of the sufficiency of theopposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851,853 [1985]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.