FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 2ND DEPT 04/24/2020 04:12 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2020
`
`2020-01527
`
`To Be Argued By:
`Gerard Ferrara
`Time Requested: 15 Minutes
`
`New York Supreme Court
`
`APPELLATE DIVISION — SECOND DEPARTMENT
`
`>> >>
`
`MALACHI JACKSON,
`
`against
`
`Docket No.
`
`2020-01527
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent,
`
`REVVEN KLEIN and RACHEL GOLDBERG,
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
`
`SCAHILL LAW GROUP P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
`1065 Stewart Avenue, Suite 210
`Bethpage, New York 11714
`516-294-5200
`gferrara@scahillpc.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Gerard Ferrara
`
`Queens County Clerk’s Index No. 717792/17
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2020
`
`2020-01527
`
`To Be Argued By:
`Gerard Ferrara
`Time Requested: 15 Minutes
`
`New York Supreme Court
`
`APPELLATE DIVISION — SECOND DEPARTMENT
`
`>> >>
`
`MALACHI JACKSON,
`
`against
`
`Docket No.
`
`2020-01527
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent,
`
`REVVEN KLEIN and RACHEL GOLDBERG,
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
`
`SCAHILL LAW GROUP P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
`1065 Stewart Avenue, Suite 210
`Bethpage, New York 11714
`516-294-5200
`gferrara@scahillpc.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Gerard Ferrara
`
`Queens County Clerk’s Index No. 717792/17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`ACCIDENT BACKGROUND ................................................................. 4
`
`SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................... 6
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 8
`
`THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT, AND SET THIS CASE DOWN FOR AN
`IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ................................................ 9
`
`A. Even If Plaintiff-Respondent Was Entitled To Summary
`Judgment As To Defendants-Appellants’ Liability;
`Plaintiff-Respondent Was Not Entitled To Summary
`Judgment As To Their Comparative Liability ..................................... 9
`
`B. Summary Judgment Was An Inappropriate Remedy As
`To Rendering A Finding Of Liability As A Matter Of
`Law In This Action ............................................................................ 12
`
`i. Police Report Was Not Probative ................................................ 16
`
`ii. Deposition Testimony Revealed Questions of Fact
`As To Plaintiff-Respondent’s Failure To See What
`Should Have Been Seen .............................................................. 18
`
`iii. Right of Way Is Just An Invitation To Enter, There
`Still Remains A Duty To Exercise Care ...................................... 20
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 21
`
`PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT ..................................................... 22
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Adobea v Junel,
`114 AD3d 818 [2d Dept 2014] ............................................................................. 16
`
`Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,
`68 NY2d 320 [1986] ............................................................................................. 14
`
`Anastasi v Terio,
`84 AD3d 992 [2d Dept 2011] ............................................................................... 20
`
`Andre v Pomeroy,
`35 NY2d 361 [1974] ...................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Arias v Tiao,
`123 AD3d 857 ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`Baldwin v Mateogarcia,
`57 AD3d 594 [2d Dept 2008] ............................................................................... 17
`
`Ballardares v City of New York,
`177 AD3d 942 (2d Dept 2019) ............................................................................. 10
`
`Bates v. Yasin,
`13 A.D.3d 474 [2d Dept. 2004] ............................................................................ 17
`
`Bennett v Granata,
`118 AD3d 653 [2d Dept 2014] ............................................................................. 20
`
`Berner v Koegel,
`31 AD3d 591 [2d Dept 2006] ............................................................................... 18
`
`Blair v Coleman,
`146 AD3d 743 (2d Dept 2017) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Blok v Mammadov,
`126 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2015] ............................................................................. 13
`
`Bongiovi v Hoffman,
`18 AD3d 686 [2d Dept 2005] ............................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Bonilla v Calabria,
`80 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2011] ............................................................................... 12
`
`Boston v Dunham,
`274 AD2d 708 [3d Dept 2000] ............................................................................. 20
`
`Bullock v Calabretta,
`119 AD3d 884 [2d Dept 2014] ...................................................................... 12, 18
`
`Burnett v Reisenauer,
`107 AD3d 656 [2d Dept 2013] ............................................................................. 12
`
`Cahales v Garber,
`195 AD2d 585 [2d Dept 1993] ............................................................................. 13
`
`Calderon-Scotti v Rosenstein,
`119 AD3d 722 [2d Dept 2014] ............................................................................. 12
`
`Canales v Arichabala,
`123 AD3d 869 [2d Dept 2014] ............................................................................. 20
`
`Chen v Cardenia,
`138 AD3d 1126 ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`Cohn v Khan,
`89 AD3d 1052 [2d Dept 2011] ............................................................................. 12
`
`Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv.,
`144 AD2d 329 [2d Dept 1988] ...................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Cox v Nunez,
`23 AD3d 427 [2d Dept 2005] ............................................................................... 18
`
`Daliendo v Johnson,
`147 AD2d 312 [2d Dept 1999] ............................................................................. 14
`
`Fogel v Rizzo,
`91 AD3d 706 [2d Dept 2012] ............................................................................... 13
`
`Friends of Animals, Inc. v Associated Fur Manufacturers, Inc.,
`46 NY2d 1065 [1979] ........................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Gause v Martinez,
`91 AD3d 595 [2d Dept 2012] .................................................................. 12, 13, 20
`
`Hatton v Gassler,
`219 AD2d 697 [2d Dept 1995] ............................................................................. 16
`
`Heller v Zumba,
`2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60082 (Southern Dist. NY 2018) ...................................... 12
`
`Higashi v Scarsdale Restaurant, LLC,
`176 AD3d 788 (2d Dept 2019) ............................................................................. 10
`
`Jiang–Hong Chen v. Heart Tr., Inc.,
`143 A.D.3d 945, 39 N.Y.S.3d 504 ........................................................................ 10
`
`JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp.,
`4 NY3d 373 [2005] ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Johannsdottir v Kohn,
`90 AD2d 842 [2d Dept 1982] ............................................................................... 13
`
`Johnson v Lutz,
`253 NY 124 [1930] ............................................................................................... 16
`
`Jones v Vialva-Duke,
`106 AD3d 1052 [2d Dept 2013] ........................................................................... 20
`
`Kenda v Dunn,
`117 AD3d 803 [2d Dept 2014] ............................................................................. 12
`
`Lacagnino v. Gonzalez,
`306 A.D.2d 250 [2d Dept. 2003] .......................................................................... 18
`
`Laino v Lucchese,
`35 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2006] ............................................................................... 18
`
`Maiorano v Price Chopper Operating Co., Inc.,
`221 AD2d 698 [3d Dept 1995] ............................................................................. 15
`
`Marine Midland Bank N.A. v Dino & Artie's Automatic Transmission Co.,
`168 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1990] ............................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Murdocca v DiGioia,
`264 AD2d 509 [2d Dept 1999] ............................................................................. 14
`
`Murray v Donlan,
`77 AD2d 337 [2d Dept 1980] ........................................................................ 16, 17
`
`Murray v Maniatis,
`21 AD3d 1012 [2d Dept 2005] ............................................................................. 15
`
`Nationwide General Ins. Co. v Bates,
`130 AD3d 795 [2d Dept 2015] ............................................................................. 17
`
`Noakes v Rosa,
`54 AD3d 317 [2d Dept 2008] ............................................................................... 16
`
`Nye v Putnam Nursing and Rehabilitation Center,
`62 AD3d 767 [2d Dept 2009] ............................................................................... 15
`
`Pantote Big Alpha Foods, Inc. v Schefman,
`121 AD2d 295 [1st Dept 1986] ..................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Parks v Greenberg,
`161 AD2d 467 [1st Dept 1990] ............................................................................ 15
`
`Phillip v D&D Carting Co., Inc.,
`136 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2015] ............................................................................... 10
`
`Phoenix Ins. Co. v Golanek,
`50 AD3d 1148 [2d Dept 2008] ............................................................................. 16
`
`Pollack v Margolin,
`84 AD3d 1341 [2d Dept 2011] ............................................................................. 13
`
`Poon v Nisanov,
`2018 NY Slip Op 04365 (2d Dept) ....................................................................... 10
`
`Quaglio v Tomaselli,
`99 AD2d 487 [2d Dept 1984] ........................................................................ 16, 17
`
`Rebecchi v Whitemore,
`172 AD2d 600 [2d Dept 1991] ............................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Regans v Baratta,
`106 AD3d 893 ................................................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Rivers v Atomic Exterminating Corp.,
`210 AD2d 134 [1st Dept 1994] ............................................................................ 13
`
`Rizzo v Lincoln Diner Corp.,
`215 AD2d 546 [2d Dept 1995] ............................................................................. 14
`
`Rodriguez v City of New York,
`31 NY3d 312 (2018) .................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Rodriguez v Ryder Truck, Inc.,
`91 AD3d 935 (2d Dept 2012) ............................................................................... 17
`
`Roman v A1 Limousine, Inc.,
`76 AD3d 552 [2d Dept 2010] ............................................................................... 13
`
`Rotuba Extruder, Inc. v Ceppor,
`46 NY2d 223 [1978] ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Russell v Barton Hepburn Hospital,
`154 AD2d 796 [3d Dept 1989] ............................................................................. 15
`
`Seelinger v Town of Middletown,
`79 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept 2010] ............................................................................. 15
`
`Semo v McMahon,
`128 AD3d 1048 [2d Dept 2015] ........................................................................... 15
`
`Seymour v Obreza Trucking,
`288 AD2d 831 [4th Dept 2001] ............................................................................ 19
`
`Siegel v Sweeney,
`266 AD2d 200 [2d Dept 1999] ...................................................................... 18, 20
`
`Simmons v Canady,
`95 AD3d 1201 [2d Dept 2012] ...................................................................... 12, 19
`
`Sirot v Troiano,
`66 AD3d 763 [2d Dept 2009] ............................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Sontag v Mulkerin,
`63 AD2d 699 [2d Dept 1978] ............................................................................... 20
`
`Steiner v Dincesen,
`95 AD3d 877 [2d Dept 2012] ............................................................................... 12
`
`Stukas v Streiter,
`83 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2011] ................................................................................. 13
`
`Taylor v New York City Transit Authority,
`130 AD 3d 712 [2d Dept 2015] ............................................................................ 16
`
`Thoma v Ronai,
`82 NY2d 736 (1993) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Todd v Godek,
`71 AD3d 872 [2d Dept 2010] .................................................................. 12, 18, 20
`
`Toussaint v. Ferrara Bros. Cement Mixer,
`33 A.D.3d 991 [2d Dept. 2006] ............................................................................ 17
`
`Twitter v Lavi,
`104 AD3d [2d Dept 2016] ................................................................................... 20
`
`Twizer v Lavi,
`140 AD3d 736 ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`Ugarizza v Schmieder,
`46 NY2d 471 [1979] ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Valenzuela v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.,
`116 AD3d 1037 [2d Dept 2014] ........................................................................... 15
`
`Vega v Restani Construction Corp.,
`18 NY3d 499 [2012] ............................................................................................. 14
`
`Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.,
`35 AD3d 455 [2d Dept 2006] ............................................................................... 16
`
`Watch v Gertsen,
`126 AD3d 687 (2d Dept 2015) ............................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Wilson v Rosedom,
`82 AD3d 970 [2d Dept 2011] ............................................................................... 18
`
`Wilson v Wei Cheng,
`98 AD3d 971 [2d Dept 2012] ............................................................................... 17
`
`Wray v Galella,
`172 AD3d 1446 (2d Dept 2019) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Young v City of New York,
`113 AD2d 833 [2d Dept 1985] ............................................................................. 19
`
`Rules
`
`CPLR 4518 ............................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The underlying action is one for personal injuries allegedly sustained by
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent, Malachi Jackson, as a result of a motor vehicle accident on
`
`June 15, 2017, at the intersection of Central Avenue with Beach 12th Street.
`
`This appeal stems from the order of Justice Frederick D.R. Sampson, dated
`
`December 18, 2019, and entered January 2, 2020, which granted Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and ordering
`
`that upon completion of discovery, the action was to be placed on the trial calendar
`
`for a trial on damages.
`
`While not explicitly stating such, by ordering the trial to proceed solely as to
`
`the issue of damages, it was clear that Justice Sampson’s decision infers a finding of
`
`liability as against Defendants-Appellants, as well as a finding that Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent holds no comparative liability.
`
`While on a motion for summary judgment the non-movant is entitled to the
`
`most favorable interpretation of the evidence, even conversely assuming that movant
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent was entitled to a summary determination of liability as against
`
`Defendants-Appellants; it is argued that there are material questions of fact as to the
`
`actions of Plaintiff-Respondent, and issues of Plaintiff-Respondent’s possible
`
`comparative negligence.
`
`1
`
`
`
`The accident occurred as the Defendants-Appellants’ vehicle, travelling on
`
`Central Avenue, entered the subject intersection and attempted to make a left-turn.
`
`The Plaintiff=Respondent was travelling in the oncoming direction on Central
`
`Avenue, attempting to proceed straight through the intersection.
`
`It is undisputed, as Plaintiff-Respondent himself testified that as he
`
`approached and entered the intersection, he never stopped or even slowed his vehicle
`
`in precaution. He never braked, or honked his horn. In fact, he conceded he only
`
`saw the Defendants-Appellants’ vehicle a “split second” prior to the impact, and
`
`took no evasive maneuvers or made any attempt to avoid an impact.
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent’s failure to even slow down as he approached the
`
`intersection, in light of evidence that there was a drastic, “sharp” turn obstructing
`
`the view of vehicular traffic on Central Avenue at the subject intersection, is a
`
`concern and evidence of at least a question of fact as to comparative negligence.
`
`This holds true regardless of whether Plaintiff-Respondent had the right of way;
`
`there always remains a duty to take reasonable precaution and use proper care to
`
`avoid accidents.
`
`Further, evidencing Plaintiff-Respondent’s possible comparative negligence,
`
`Defendant-Appellant testified that she properly stopped at the intersection to await
`
`a clearing in traffic. She had properly illuminated her left turn signal. When she felt
`
`it was safe to do so, she then entered the intersection and initiated her left turn, when
`
`2
`
`
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent’s vehicle suddenly “came out of nowhere”. This infers the
`
`possibility that Plaintiff-Respondent’s vehicle was travelling at an unsafe speed,
`
`given the conditions of the roadway.
`
`It is undisputed that both vehicles, travelling in oncoming directions, were not
`
`governed by any traffic control device. Thus, other than the Defendant-Appellant’s
`
`duty as a left-turning vehicle to yield to oncoming vehicles that are so close to the
`
`intersection as to pose a hazard, Defendant-Appellant was fully within her right to
`
`execute a left-turn at the subject intersection. Given the inference of Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent’s possible speed and failure to take reasonable precaution, and a
`
`question as to who entered and controlled the intersection first, it is respectfully
`
`submitted that a jury should be required to determine the liability of the parties.
`
`Even assuming Defendants-Appellants should be held to be liable to some
`
`unknown extent; Defendants-Appellants should not be deemed fully liable as a
`
`matter of law, and Plaintiff-Respondent’s comparative liability should be considered
`
`by a trial jury.
`
`3
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`As noted, it is respectfully submitted that the court below erred in granting
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, or at the least,
`
`erred in determining that Plaintiff-Respondent was deemed to not hold any
`
`comparative liability as a matter of law.
`
`I.
`
`ACCIDENT BACKGROUND
`
`The subject accident occurred on June 15, 2017, at the intersection of Central
`
`Avenue, and Beach 12th Street, in Queens, NY. The subject accident intersection
`
`was not governed by any traffic control devices. The Plaintiff-Respondent, Malachi
`
`Jackson, was travelling westbound on Central Avenue, with intentions of proceeding
`
`straight through the subject intersection. The Defendant-Appellant, Rachel
`
`Goldberg, was operating a vehicle owned by her husband, Defendant-Appellant,
`
`Revven Klein, and travelling eastbound on Central Avenue. The accident occurred
`
`when the Goldberg vehicle entered the intersection, and attempted to make a left-
`
`turn onto Beach 12th Street. While the Goldberg vehicle was in the intersection, the
`
`Jackson vehicle entered the intersection, and an impact occurred.
`
`(R. 9-12).
`
`
`
`Prior to entering the intersection, Defendant-Appellant, Rachel Goldberg,
`
`brought her vehicle to a stop, to await traffic to clear. Her turn signal was
`
`illuminated. When she did not observe any traffic, she entered the intersection “not
`
`4
`
`
`
`going very fast”. The minimal speed of the Goldberg vehicle at the time of impact,
`
`was supported by the “light” impact, minimal vehicle damage, and no airbag
`
`deployment. It is conceded that Defendant-Appellant, Rachel Goldberg, did not
`
`observe the Jackson vehicle prior to the impact. Defendant-Appellant Goldberg
`
`specifically testified that after she began her turn, “a car came out of nowhere, and
`
`we collided.”
`
`(R. 90, 99, 101-105, 126).
`
`It was conceded by the Plaintiff-Respondent, Malachi Jackson, that he only
`
`observed
`
`the Goldberg vehicle a “split second” prior
`
`to
`
`the accident.
`
`Notwithstanding the evidence that the Goldberg vehicle was stopped with an
`
`illuminated turn signal prior to entering the intersection, then slowly entered the
`
`intersection, and the minimal impact; despite only observing the Goldberg vehicle
`
`for a “split second”, Mr. Jackson inexplicably alleged he was able to observe in that
`
`“split second” the Goldberg vehicle engine “revving”, not slowing, and abruptly
`
`turning, completely contrary to Defendant-Appellant’s sworn testimony. Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent also conceded he too never slowed or stopped, and simply proceeded
`
`into the intersection.
`
`(R. 90, 99, 101-105, 228-231).
`
`
`
`Further evidence was also submitted, that Central Avenue in the area of the
`
`subject accident intersection, is a “sharp” turn, specifically: “[It is] not a gradual
`
`5
`
`
`
`turn, it is an angled turn at the intersection”. This angle makes it difficult to observe
`
`vehicular traffic.
`
`(R. 167-170).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent, Malachi Jackson, commenced the subject action by the
`
`filing of a summons and complaint, on or about December 22, 2017. Issue was
`
`joined, and an answer interposed by Defendants-Appellants, Revven Klein and
`
`Rachel Goldberg, on or about February 23, 2018.
`
`(R. 21-32).
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent, Malachi Jackson, filed a motion for summary judgment
`
`on or about, August 1, 2019, alleging that Defendants-Appellants, Revven Klein and
`
`Rachel Goldberg, were the sole proximate causes of the subject accident.
`
`(R. 7-20).
`
`Defendants-Appellants, Revven Klein and Rachel Goldberg, filed opposition
`
`to the Plaintiff-Respondent’s motion, on or about October 17, 2019; including a copy
`
`of the Plaintiff-Respondent’s deposition testimony, which was not included as part
`
`of Plaintiff-Respondent’s motion.
`
`(R. 193-333).
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent, Malachi Jackson, filed a Reply Affirmation in response
`
`to the Defendant-Appellant’s opposition, on or about, October 23, 2019.
`
`6
`
`
`
`(R. 334-338).
`
`
`
`By Order dated December 18, 2019, and entered January 2, 2020, of Justice
`
`Frederick D.R. Sampson, Plaintiff-Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was
`
`granted. In addition to a finding of liability as against Defendants-Appellants, while
`
`not explicitly stating as such, Justice Sampson clearly also found Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent held no comparative liability, by ordering the case proceed immediately
`
`to an assessment of damages.
`
`(R. 5-6).
`
`While Defendants-Appellants appeal from all aspects of Justice Sampson’s
`
`granting of summary judgment; it is the finding that there were no questions of fact
`
`as to the Plaintiff-Respondent’s comparative liability, that is the most troubling.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`ISSUE: Whether the trial court, by Order of Justice Frederick D.R. Sampson,
`
`erred in finding no triable issues of fact and granting the Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent’s motion as to a finding of liability against Defendant-
`
`Appellants, and/or erred as to a finding of Plaintiff-Respondent’s lack
`
`of comparative liability?
`
`ANSWER: The question must be answered in the affirmative. As Defendant-
`
`Appellant was unable to timely observe the Plaintiff-Respondent’s
`
`vehicle, and Plaintiff-Respondent was unable to avoid the accident,
`
`questions of fact exist as to Plaintiff-Respondent’s speed and failure to
`
`take reasonable precaution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT, AND SET THIS CASE DOWN FOR AN
`
`IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES.
`
`For the reasons described above and below, Plaintiff-Respondent’s motion for
`
`summary judgment was improperly granted. Even assuming Defendant-Appellant
`
`was negligent, there are questions of fact as to whether Plaintiff-Respondent was
`
`travelling at an unsafe speed, and failed to use proper care. Even a driver with the
`
`right of way, still has a duty to take reasonable precautions, to see what is there to
`
`be seen, and to not blindly and wantonly enter an intersection.
`
`A. Even If Plaintiff-Respondent Was Entitled To Summary Judgment As
`To Defendants-Appellants’ Liability; Plaintiff-Respondent Was Not
`Entitled To Summary Judgment As To Their Comparative Liability.
`
`The Court of Appeals recently, in Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 NY3d
`
`312 (2018), clarified a movant’s burden on summary judgment. If plaintiff is not
`
`seeking a determination that they are free from liability, but, merely seeking a
`
`determination that a defendant is liable (establishing as a matter of law that a
`
`defendant is liable to some unknown percentage); then plaintiff does not have to
`
`prove freedom from comparative negligence. In that case, plaintiff has solely proven
`
`as a matter of law that the first two (2) questions on the standard jury verdict sheet
`
`have been answered in the affirmative (i.e., whether defendant was negligent, and if
`
`so, was a substantial factor [proximate cause]).
`
`9
`
`
`
`However, if a plaintiff is also seeking a determination that they are not liable
`
`(or seeking a determination that the case should proceed directly to a damages trial,
`
`or that a defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence should be
`
`stricken); then plaintiff is still required to prove his freedom from comparative
`
`negligence (Id.; Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736 (1993); Phillip v D&D Carting Co.,
`
`Inc., 136 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2015]).
`
`In Poon v Nisanov, 2018 NY Slip Op 04365 (2d Dept), the Court held:
`
`“Although a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of his or her
`own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment
`as to a defendant's liability (see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31
`N.Y.3d at 323–25, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366, 2018 N.Y. Slip
`Op. 02287), the issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence may be
`decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here,
`the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant's
`affirmative defense of comparative negligence (see e.g. Jiang–Hong
`Chen v. Heart Tr., Inc., 143 A.D.3d 945, 945, 39 N.Y.S.3d 504).”
`[Emphasis added]
`
`
`See also Wray v Galella, 172 AD3d 1446 (2d Dept 2019); Ballardares v City
`
`of New York, 177 AD3d 942 (2d Dept 2019); Higashi v Scarsdale Restaurant,
`
`LLC, 176 AD3d 788 (2d Dept 2019) – all standing for the proposition that
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment dismissal of comparative
`
`negligence only where Plaintiff established their lack of comparative
`
`negligence.
`
`10
`
`
`
`In the former scenario, (a determination solely that defendant is liable),
`
`the issue of plaintiff’s possible comparative negligence is still not resolved.
`
`A liability trial is required to determine plaintiff’s possible comparative
`
`negligence.
`
`This issue was again specifically addressed in a recent holding of
`
`Justice Vincent J. Martorana, dated August 9, 2019, in Miles v Walsh (Suffolk
`
`County Index #: 615164/2018):
`
`““When a defendant’s liability is established as a matter of law before
`trial, the jury must still determine whether the [adverse party] was
`negligent and whether such negligence was a substantial factor in
`causing plaintiff’s injuries. If so, the comparative fault of each party is
`then apportioned by the jury. Therefore, the jury is still tasked with
`considering the plaintiff’s and defendant’s culpability together”
`(Rodriguez v. City of New York, supra at 324).”
`
`
`
`Here there were clear questions of fact as to Plaintiff-Respondent’s possible
`
`negligence, i.e.:
`
`a) The accident intersection had a sharp angled curve, making it difficult
`
`to observe vehicular traffic, yet, Plaintiff-Respondent never even
`
`slowed, before wantonly entering the intersection; and
`
`b) Plaintiff-Respondent failed to observe the Goldberg vehicle until a
`
`“split second” prior to the accident.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Accordingly, if the trial court decided to grant partial summary judgment on
`
`the issue of liability, the order should have held that the case is to proceed to a jury
`
`trial “on the following issues: (1) whether the plaintiff was herself/himself negligent;
`
`(2) whether plaintiff’s negligence, if any, was a substantial factor in causing his/her
`
`own injuries; (3) the comparative fault of plaintiff and defendant; and (4) if any;
`
`damages.” Heller v Zumba, 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60082 (Southern Dist. NY 2018).
`
`Conversely, Justice Sampson ordered an immediate trial on damages.
`
`B. Summary Judgment Was An Inappropriate Remedy As To Rendering
`A Finding Of Liability As A Matter Of Law In This Action
`
`There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and the issue of
`
`comparative negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury (Bullock v
`
`Calabretta, 119 AD3d 884 [2d Dept 2014]; Calderon-Scotti v Rosenstein, 119 AD3d
`
`722 [2d Dept 2014]; Steiner v Dincesen, 95 AD3d 877 [2d Dept 2012]; Gause v
`
`Martinez, 91 AD3d 595 [2d Dept 2012]; Bonilla v Calabria, 80 AD3d 720 [2d Dept
`
`2011]; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872 [2d Dept 2010].
`
`Given that there could be more than one proximate cause of an accident, the
`
`party moving for a full summary judgment determination of liability must establish
`
`their “freedom from comparative negligence” (Kenda v Dunn, 117 AD3d 803 [2d
`
`Dept 2014]; see Burnett v Reisenauer, 107 AD3d 656 [2d Dept 2013]; Simmons v
`
`Canady, 95 AD3d 1201 [2d Dept 2012]; Cohn v Khan, 89 AD3d 1052 [2d Dept
`
`12
`
`
`
`2011]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2d Dept 2011]; Roman v A1
`
`Limousine, Inc., 76 AD3d 552 [2d Dept 2010]).
`
`It is the duty of the triers of fact to determine whether the defendant's conduct
`
`fell below any permissible standard of due care. The issue of comparative
`
`negligence is generally a question for the jury to decide (see Blok v Mammadov, 126
`
`AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2015]; Fogel v Rizzo, 91 AD3d 706 [2d Dept 2012]; Gause v
`
`Martinez, 91 AD3d 595 [2d Dept 2012]). This issue can "rarely be decided as a
`
`matter of law" (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361 [1974]).
`
`“Negligence cases by their very nature do not usually lend themselves to
`
`summary judgment." (Ugarizza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471 [1979]). Summary
`
`judgment is "rarely granted in negligence cases since the very question of whether a
`
`defendant's conduct amounts to negligence is inherently a question for the trier of
`
`fact in all but the most egregious instances" (Johannsdottir v Kohn, 90 AD2d 842
`
`[2d Dept 1982]; see also Cahales v Garber, 195 AD2d 585 [2d Dept 1993]; Rivers v
`
`Atomic Exterminating Corp., 210 AD2d 134 [1st Dept 1994]).
`
`Summary judgment is a "drastic remedy and should not be granted where
`
`there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue" (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d
`
`18, 23 [2d Dept 2011]; Friends of Animals, Inc. v Associated Fur Manufacturers,
`
`Inc., 46 NY2d 1065 [1979]; Rotuba Extruder, Inc. v Ceppor, 46 NY2d 223 [1978]).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Summary judgment is a drastic remedy because it deprives a litigant his day in Court
`
`and should only be used where there is no doubt as to the lack of triable issues.
`
`“Summary judgment is to be granted only where a movant has “tender[ed]
`
`sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez
`
`v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) and then only if, upon a movant meeting
`
`this burden, the non-moving party fails “to establish the existence of material issues of
`
`fact which require a trial on the action.” (Id.)
`
`Only if the facts are not disputed, is summary judgment an appropriate remedy
`
`(Andre, 35 NY2d 361 [1974]). Where the Court entertains any doubt as to whether a
`
`triable issue of fact exists, summary judgment must be denied (see, e.g., Daliendo v
`
`Johnson, 147 AD2d 312 [2d Dept 1999]).
`
`A moving party’s “[f]ailure to make a prima facie showing [of t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
