| Pelikan v Latney-Castillo |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00348 [135 AD3d 839] |
| January 20, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Sandra Pelikan, Appellant, v KarenLatney-Castillo, Defendant, and Daquda Konate et al.,Respondents. |
DeToffol & Associates, New York, NY (David J. DeToffol of counsel), forappellant.
Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn,NY, of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered January 13, 2015, whichgranted the motion of the defendants Daquda Konate and Myna Taxi, Inc., for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle operated by the defendant Daquda Konateand owned by the defendant Myna Taxi, Inc. (hereinafter Myna Taxi), when it was struckin the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant Karen Latney-Castillo. Latney-Castillotestified during her deposition that she was attempting to press the brake pedal when sheaccidentally pressed the brake pedal and the gas pedal simultaneously, causing hervehicle to accelerate. The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries as a result of the accidentand commenced this action against the defendants. Konate and Myna Taxi moved forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, contendingthat Konate was not at fault in the happening of the accident. The Supreme Court grantedthe motion. We affirm.
" 'A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is requiredto maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditionsto avoid colliding with the other vehicle' " (Billis v Tunjian, 120 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2014], quoting Scheker v Brown, 85 AD3d1007 [2011]; see Sehgal vwww.nyairportsbus.com, Inc., 100 AD3d 860 [2012]; Plummer v Nourddine, 82AD3d 1069 [2011]). Here, Konate and Myna Taxi established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them by demonstrating that the rear-end collision was proximately caused byLatney-Castillo's negligence in the operation of her vehicle and that Konate was not atfault in the happening of the accident (see Plummer v Nourddine, 82 AD3d at1070; Nozine v Anurag, 38AD3d 631 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue offact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Konate and MynaTaxi for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.