Maziejka v Lieberman
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle personal injury liability arising from a lane-change collision and whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability and dismissal of comparative negligence defenses.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and to dismiss the defendant's affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence.
The Appellate Division reversed the order and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the comparative negligence defenses.
The evidence showed that the defendant attempted to move into the plaintiff's lane when it was unsafe, violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) [requires a driver not to move from a lane until the movement can be made safely]. The plaintiff also showed she was not at fault, and the defendant's claim that she was speeding was speculative because he admitted he did not see her vehicle before impact.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that on November 18, 2021, she was driving in the right lane on Northern Boulevard in Roslyn when the defendant attempted to enter her lane and struck the driver's side of her vehicle. She sued to recover damages for personal injuries and later moved for summary judgment on liability and for dismissal of the defendant's affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, leaving liability and comparative negligence issues unresolved for further proceedings.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through deposition testimony demonstrating that the defendant made an unsafe lane change in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) [requires a driver not to move from a lane until the movement can be made safely]. The court further held that the plaintiff established that she was free from fault and that the defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Because the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was speeding was unsupported speculation, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a driver who merges into a lane of moving traffic when it is unsafe is negligent as a matter of law under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) [requires a driver not to move from a lane until the movement can be made safely]. It also confirms that, while a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on liability need not disprove comparative negligence in the first instance, the court may dismiss a defendant's comparative negligence defenses when the plaintiff affirmatively seeks that relief and the record shows the plaintiff was not at fault.
In a lane-change collision case, a plaintiff can obtain summary judgment on liability and dismissal of comparative negligence defenses when the evidence shows the defendant made an unsafe lane change and the defense theory of plaintiff fault rests only on speculation.