Coronavirus (COVID-19) Alert: Our firm is open and serving the needs of existing and new clients.

City Emergency vehicle struck in rear

A highway maintenance worker while driving his emergency vehicle on the Belt Parkway was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. Our Experienced Car Accident Lawyers made a motion for summary judgment to win the case as a matter of law and we won our motion. The defendant was found 100 percent responsible for the accident and the only issue remaining was for a jury to decide the damages.

NYRELL HARRIS V. NOAM YISRAEL HIRSCHORN AND DAVID HIRSCHORN

SUPREME COURT, QUEENS COUNTY, INDEX # 710903/2020

Plaintiff Nyrel Harris (“plaintiff’) moves, pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (‘CPLR’) S 3212, for summary judgment on liability. Plaintiff also moves to strike defendants’ first and second affirmative defenses as to plaintiffs alleged comparative negligence and failure to wear a seatbelt. Defendants Noam Yisrael Hirschorn, the driver of the vehicle owned by David Hirschorn (collectively “defendants”), oppose the motion. Upon the papers submitted, plaintiff’s motion is granted in its entirety.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 3,2020. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries as a result of a hit-in-the-rear collision that occurred on the Belt Parkway at its interaction with East 14th Street in Kings County, New York.
ln his motion, plaintiff avers that he was a seat-belted driver of an emergency maintenance vehicle on Belt Parkway during the course of his employment for the New York City Department of Transportation when defendants’ vehicle struck his vehicle in the rear in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law $ ‘1 129(a). Plaintiff also asserts that there is no evidence to show that he was comparatively negligent for the happening of the alleged accident.

ln opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff’s pre-discovery motion for summary judgment as to liability and to strike their first and second affirmative defenses regarding plaintiffs alleged comparative negligence and failure to wear a seatbelt should be denied as premature as it is only through discovery that they may have the means to show the existence of a material issue of fact.

ln reply, plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision or submit an affidavit from the driver attesting to the same.

Summary judgment pursuant to CPLR S 3212 provides a mechanism for the prompt disposition, prior to trial, of civil actions which can be decided as a matter of law (see generally, Brill v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 650 [2004]). On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must make out a prima facie case by submitting evidence in admissible form which establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Marshall v Arias, 12 AD3d 423, 424[2d Dept 2004]). Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present admissible evidence which demonstrates the necessity of a trial as to an issue of fact (see, Zolin v Roslyn Synagogue, 154 AD2d 369, 369 [2d Dept 1989]). The non-moving party must be afforded every favorable inference that can be drawn from the evidentiary facts established (see, McArdle v M & M Farms, 90 AD2d 538 [2d Dept i982]). However, conclusory, unsupported allegations or general denials are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, William lselin Co. lnc. v Landau ,71NY2d 420,427 [1988]; Stern v Stern, 87 AD2d 887, 887 [2d Dept 1982]).

As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs pre-discovery motion for summary judgment is not premature (see, Rainford v Han, 18 AD3d 638, 639-40 [2d Dept 2005]). Indeed, the Appellate Division, Second Department has held that, “The purported need to conduct discovery [does] not warrant denial” of a motion for summary judgment where “[t]he opponents of the motion had personal knowledge of the relevant facts” (see id Emil Norsic & Son. lnc. v L.p. Transp., lnc., 30 AD3d 368, 369 [2d Dept 2006]; Rainford, 18 AD3d at 639-40, supra: Niyazov v Bradford, 13AD3d 501 , 502 [2d Dept 2004]; Morissaint v Raemar Corp.,271 AD2d 5A6,587 I2d Dept 20001). Here, the relevant facts underlying the alleged accident would be within Noam Yisrael Hirschorn’s personal knowledge as he was the driver of the vehicle that allegedly struck plaintiffs vehicle in the rear. Accordingly, defendants’ “purported need to conduct discovery does not warrant denial of the motion” (see, Emil Norsic & Son. lnc. 30 AD3d at 369 suora; Rainford, 18 AD3d at 639-40, supra).

Turning to the substance of plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff contends that defendants violated Vehicle and Traffic Law g 1129(a). Under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Sec. 1129(a) “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.” Therefore, “[a] driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle. (Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672, 672 [2d Dept 2010]; NY Veh & Traf. Law Sec. 1129). ln that regard, “a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” (Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp , 82 AD3d 725,726 [2d Dept 2011]).

Here, plaintiff has met his burden by submitting evidence sufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, Emil Norsic & Son. lnc., 30 AD3d at 368, supra). lndeed, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in which he attests that he was driving in the left on Belt Parkway when he “felt a sudden impact upon the rear of [his] vehicle by the defendant’s motor vehicle (see, Pl. Exh. B; Clements v Giatas, 178 AD3d 894, 895 [2d Dept 2019]; Oniz,82 AD3d at 727 , supra).

ln opposition to plaintiffs prima facie showing of negligence, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a non-negligent explanation for the rear end collision (see, Ortiz, 82 AD3d a|727, supra). lndeed, defendants neither contest that they struck plaintiffs vehicle in the rear nor provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see, id.; Nivazov v Hunter EMS, lnc., 154 AD3d 954, 955 [2d Dept 20171; Zweeres v Materi, 94 AD3d 1111,1112 [2d Dept 2012]; Smith v Seskin,49 AD3d 628,629 [2d Dept 2008]; Nivazov, 13 AD3d at 502; supra; Morissaint, 271 AD2d at 587, supra). Accordingly, as defendants have failed to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie showing of negligence, the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

Similarly, as defendants have not raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff caused the alleged accident or “whether any culpable conduct” by plaintiff “contributed to the happening of the subject accident” (see, supra), plaintiffs application to strike defendants’ first affirmative defense regarding the same is granted (see, Rodriquez ,31 NY3d at 324, supra; Nivazov, 154 AD3d 955, supra; Comas-Bourne v City of New York, 146 AD3d 855, 856 [2d Dept 2017]).
Furthermore, plaintiff’s application to strike defendants’ second affirmative defense regarding his alleged failure to wear a seatbelt is granted. Notably, in his affidavit, plaintiff avers that he was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the alleged accident (see, Pl. Exh. B; Giwa v Bloom, 154 AD3d 921,923 [2d Dept 2017]; Johnson v Barry, No. 32570/2018E, 2019 WL 4922536, at 1 [NY Sup Ct Aug 26,20191; see also, Brabham v City of New York, 105 AD3d 881, 883 [2d Dept 2013]). ln response, defendants did not oppose plaintiff’s statement or submit any evidence to rebut plaintiff’s assertion (see, id.). Accordingly, this branch of plaintiff’s motion is granted, and defendants’ second affirmative defense as to the same is dismissed.

ln sum, the branch of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted. The Court further grants the branch of plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ first and second affirmative defenses regarding plaintiffs alleged comparative negligence and failure to wear a seatbelt.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court
Dated: May 6, 2021
Donna-Marie E. Golia, J.S.C.

Select A Practice Area

Construction Accident

$1,700,000

$1.7 million verdict in New York County against the driver of a delivery truck who struck a man as he was crossing the street within the crosswalk in Manhattan.

Motor Vehicle Accident

$3,600,000

$3.6 Million settlement in New York Supreme Court for a Spanish speaking construction worker who fell off a 6 foot ladder and landed onto metal and wooden debris. The worker required lumbar spinal surgery for his injuries and needed surgeries to both knees from the fall. The worker could not return to work and suffered depression from his injuries resulting in a suicide attempt.

Construction Accident

$3,200,000

$3.2 million verdict in Queens Supreme Court for an undocumented Polish speaking construction worker who fell 12 feet during a demolition project. The worker fractured a vertebrae and herniated several discs in his spine requiring surgery. The plaintiff was unable to return back to work due to his injuries.

Motor Vehicle Accident

$1,500,000

$1.5 million verdict in Supreme Court Kings County for a woman struck by a car that jumped the curb and hit the pedestrian while standing on the sidewalk across from Prospect Park, Brooklyn.

Slip And Fall Accident

$1,900,000

$1.9 million verdict in New York Supreme Court for a bank manager who slipped and fell on a wet floor, resulting in spinal injuries. The building owner knew about a recurring leak inside the basement cafeteria but failed to correct the problem.

Construction Accident

$2,000,000

$2 million settlement in Queens Supreme Court for Polish construction worker who fell 2 stories from a bucket. The worker’s supervisor told the construction worker to ride the material bucket down to use the bathroom because it would save time. The worker fractured his pelvis in several places requiring surgery and was unable to return to work.

Medical Malpractice

$4,500,000

Defense counsel offers 11 cents to settle before trial and the jury renders a verdict of $4.5 million dollars for a medical malpractice victim and his wife. The action was commenced in New York Supreme Court for a patient who suffered massive internal bleeding during a lower back surgery when the surgeon negligently cut an artery and failed to promptly treat the condition, causing a loss of oxygen and injury to the brain. The anesthesiologist failed to properly monitor the patient’s vitals during the surgery and alert the surgeon of the drop in blood pressure.

Assault

$1,250,000

$1.25 million settlement in New York Supreme Court against building owner for negligent security that caused two women to be assaulted while leaving work. A masked man entered their elevator from a floor that was supposed to be closed off for construction. The assailant used a metal pipe to attack the two women. The two women split the settlement monies.

Construction Accident

$1,500,000

$1.5 Million settlement in New York Supreme Court for a construction worker who was struck by a piece of concrete that fell on his head and back. Workers above were chipping concrete despite knowing that people were working directly below them. The plaintiff required surgery on his neck but made a good recovery.

Medical Malpractice

$3,900,000

$3.9 million settlement in Supreme Court Kings County for a Brooklyn man who suffered a stroke shortly following an eye surgery. The patient was given medical clearance for local anesthesia but instead was placed under general anesthesia for 7 hours. The patient’s blood pressure was not well controlled resulting in a 30 minute hypertensive emergency near the end of the operation. The patient died after 7 years of living in different nursing homes.

Slip, Trip and Fall, New York

$1,400,000

$1.4 Million settlement for Queens Hispanic woman who slipped and fell on ice walking out the door of her rented basement apartment.

CLIENT REVIEWS

    I did not think myself that we will win this difficult matter and become victorious, especially after being rejected by numerous other attorneys…but your professionalism Brett, dedication and determination, not to mention a huge heart, was how we prevailed

ALEKSANDER J.

    When I brought my situation to a local attorney he directed me to Brett Nomberg, and I’m so glad he did. Someone always was able to give me a status of what was going on. Your team made my wife and I realize we were dealing with a truly professional firm and at the same time, sympathetic to our needs. Great job. Excellent Customer Service.

GREG M.

    I want to thank you for all the help and support that was given to my parents by you and your colleagues. Your firm’s time, effort and dedication, is without question second to none and this led to a successful settlement

PAT R.

    We can’t thank you enough for the wonderful representation you provided and for believing in our case. It was very vindicating to have a judge and jury decide in our favor.

JANE AND TOM D.