AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ALEKSANDR MILSKIY, respondent, v. SAUMIL SOLANKY, ET AL., defendants, ANTHONY BENTO, appellant.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On June 16, 2001, the defendant Anthony Bento was driving on the Belt Parkway when his vehicle struck the rear of a vehicle driven by the defendant Edward Ryzhak and owned by the defendant Iren Ryzhak. The Ryzhak vehicle then struck the plaintiff, who was standing in the roadway after an earlier accident in the same area.

A "rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and imposes a duty on him or her to explain how the accident occurred" ( McGregor v. Manzo, 295 A.D.2d 487; see Bustillo v. Matturro, 292 A.D.2d 554, 555; Danza v. Longieliere, 256 A.D.2d 434, 435). The plaintiff demonstrated his entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that Bento struck the rear of another vehicle on the roadway, which then struck the plaintiff. Since Bento was unable to meet his burden of demonstrating a non-negligent cause for the accident, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of Bento's liability. Other issues, such as the plaintiff's contributory negligence, what part, if any, the initial accident played, and the apportionment of damages have not been determined on this appeal.

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MILSKIY v. SOLANKY
(Jun 7, 2004)