Khodjaeva v City of New York
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle negligence and summary judgment arising from a multi-vehicle rear-end chain collision involving a New York City Fire Department box truck.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied dismissal of the affirmative defenses and the counterclaim asserted against Khodjaeva.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment, and granted the plaintiffs' motion on liability while dismissing the affirmative defenses and the counterclaim against Khodjaeva.
The plaintiffs established that Khodjaeva's vehicle was stopped in traffic when it was struck from behind twice by the City truck, creating a prima facie case of negligence against the rear vehicle. The defendants failed to offer a nonnegligent explanation, failed to present evidence that Khodjaeva was comparatively negligent, and the assumption-of-risk defense did not apply.
Background
This personal injury action arose from a four-vehicle collision on the Long Island Expressway. A New York City Fire Department box truck owned by the City of New York and operated by Christopher Viera struck the rear of a vehicle driven by Zukhro Khodjaeva, in which Bulent Gundogdu was a passenger. Khodjaeva's vehicle was then pushed into the rear of a vehicle operated by Keun Seob Cho, which in turn was propelled into the lead vehicle. Khodjaeva and Gundogdu sued for personal injuries. In support of their motion, they relied in part on testimony from their General Municipal Law § 50-h [pre-suit hearing for claims against municipalities] hearings and a certified police accident report stating that Viera saw stopped traffic but could not brake in time.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion by Khodjaeva and Gundogdu for summary judgment on the issue of liability and for dismissal of the affirmative defenses and the counterclaim asserted against Khodjaeva.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and granted the motion in full. It held that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that Khodjaeva's vehicle was stopped due to traffic when it was rear-ended twice by the City truck, and that this established negligence by the rear vehicle in a chain-collision case. The court further held that the plaintiffs demonstrated Khodjaeva was not at fault, requiring dismissal of the comparative-negligence defense, and that assumption of risk had no application. Because the defendants offered no evidence denying the plaintiffs' account and no nonnegligent explanation beyond Viera's inability to stop in time, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York's rule that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the rear driver, including in chain-collision cases involving a middle vehicle that is propelled forward. It also confirms that a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on liability need not prove freedom from comparative negligence, although a plaintiff may also obtain dismissal of comparative-negligence defenses where the record shows no fault by that plaintiff.
When a stopped vehicle is struck from behind and pushed into other cars, the rear driver must provide a supported nonnegligent explanation for the collision. Simply saying the driver could not brake in time is insufficient, and unsupported defenses of comparative negligence or assumption of risk will be dismissed.