Cameron v Plaisir
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Automobile negligence; civil procedure—motions to renew and summary judgment
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability, dismissed defendants' comparative negligence affirmative defense and counterclaim, and later denied defendants' motion for leave to renew their opposition.
The denial of leave to renew was reversed; upon renewal, the prior order granting plaintiffs' motions was vacated and both summary judgment motions were denied.
Defendants provided a reasonable law office failure excuse under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 2005 [permits a court to excuse delay or default due to law office failure] and new facts sufficient to change the prior determination under CPLR 2221(e) [renewal must be based on new facts not previously offered that would change the prior determination, plus a reasonable justification for not presenting them earlier]. Their affidavit and supporting photographs offered a conflicting account (an improper left turn by plaintiffs from the center lane causing contact with the rear quarter panel), creating triable issues that defeated summary judgment despite the rear-end collision presumption.
Background
On September 17, 2022, a vehicle operated by plaintiff Orisa Cameron, with plaintiff Serita Fields-Subryan as a passenger, collided with a vehicle operated by defendant Josue Plaisir and owned by defendant 1460 G&M Building Supply, Inc. Plaintiffs sued in February 2023. Defendants answered and asserted a contribution counterclaim against Cameron. Plaintiffs moved in April 2023 for summary judgment on liability and to dismiss defendants' comparative negligence defense; Cameron separately moved in June 2023 to dismiss the counterclaim. The Supreme Court granted both motions on July 27, 2023. Defendants moved on or about August 30, 2023, for leave to renew their opposition; the Supreme Court denied renewal on December 19, 2023, and defendants appealed.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability, dismissed defendants' comparative negligence affirmative defense and Cameron obtained dismissal of the contribution counterclaim; the court later denied defendants' motion for leave to renew their opposition to those motions.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, granted leave to renew, vacated the July 27, 2023 order, and upon renewal denied plaintiffs' motions. The court held that defendants' law office failure was a reasonable excuse and that defendants' affidavit with photographs presented a divergent account (plaintiffs' improper left turn from the center lane causing side impact to the rear quarter panel), creating triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment, notwithstanding the rear-end collision presumption.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that courts may accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse for renewal under CPLR 2005 and that renewal is appropriate under CPLR 2221(e) when new evidence and justification are provided. In rear-end collision cases, evidence presenting a conflicting mechanism of impact—especially supported by photographs—can create triable issues of fact as to comparative negligence and liability, making summary judgment inappropriate and preserving counterclaims for contribution.
A reasonable law office failure can justify renewal, and a well-supported alternate account of an automobile collision can defeat the rear-end presumption and preclude summary judgment on liability, comparative negligence, and contribution.