Abdiev v Struett
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle negligence—summary judgment and proximate cause arising from a turn/passing collision.
Granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding plaintiff solely at fault.
The order granting the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendant failed to establish prima facie that she was not at fault; conflicting deposition testimony and inconclusive dashcam video raised triable issues, and there can be more than one proximate cause.
Background
Plaintiff alleges personal injuries from a collision where his vehicle's front passenger side struck the rear driver's side of defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff testified he was traveling straight and attempted to pass defendant's vehicle, which was stopped on the right shoulder with hazard lights on, when defendant moved left into his path. Defendant testified she had stopped in her lane after missing a turn, activated her left turn signal to enter a private driveway, and while turning left plaintiff crossed the double yellow line and struck her rear driver's side; she did not see plaintiff before impact. Dashcam footage from plaintiff's vehicle was of poor quality and did not clearly corroborate either version.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, accepting defendant's claim that plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law; defendant's motion for summary judgment denied. The Appellate Division held the defendant did not meet her prima facie burden to show she was free from fault given conflicting testimony and inconclusive video evidence. Because the moving party failed to meet the initial burden, the motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that on a negligence motion for summary judgment, the defendant must establish prima facie freedom from fault; conflicting accounts and ambiguous video evidence preclude summary judgment, and multiple proximate causes may exist. If the movant fails to meet the initial burden, the court must deny the motion regardless of the opponent's papers.
A defendant cannot secure summary judgment in a car-accident negligence case when conflicting testimony and inconclusive video leave triable issues about fault and proximate cause.