SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1137 

CA 12-00644 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

 

MARK A. PRINE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ADAM M. SANTEE, SIMON M. COAL-ALOOR, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

AND ANNA TORRES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. ARCHILLA, BUFFALO (JILL Z. FLORKOWSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN J. FROMEN, ESQ., BUFFALO, MAGAVERN MAGAVERN GRIMM

LLP (EDWARD J. MARKARIAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (SCOTT R. ORNDOFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT ADAM M. SANTEE. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M.

Siwek, J.), entered June 6, 2011 in a personal injury action. The

order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendant

Anna Torres for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is

reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion of defendant Anna

Torres is granted and the amended complaint and all cross claims are

dismissed against her. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries he sustained in a four-vehicle-chain-reaction accident.

Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of Anna Torres

(defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and

all cross claims against her. Defendant, the driver of the first of

the four vehicles involved, testified at her deposition that she had

her foot on the brake and that her vehicle had come to a complete stop

at a red light, approximately “half of a car” length behind the

vehicle in front of her, when it was rear-ended by the second vehicle

in the chain. That vehicle was owned and operated by defendant Simon

M. Coal-Aloor, who testified at his deposition that his vehicle was

also stopped in the line of vehicles at the traffic signal, with 10 to

15 feet between the front of his vehicle and the rear of defendant’s

vehicle, when he was rear-ended and propelled into the rear of

defendant’s vehicle by plaintiff’s vehicle, which was third in the

chain. Plaintiff in turn testified at his deposition that the CoalAloor vehicle immediately in front of him came to a “sudden stop.”
-2- 1137 

CA 12-00644 

Plaintiff was able to bring his vehicle to a safe stop, but it was

then rear-ended by a vehicle owned and operated by defendant Adam M.

Santee, which was fourth in the chain. We conclude that defendant met

her burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of

law (see Piazza v D’Anna, 6 AD3d 1161, 1162; Betts v Marecki, 247 AD2d

916, 916-917), and plaintiff and the other defendants failed to raise

a triable issue of fact (see Zielinski v Van Pelt [appeal No. 2], 9

AD3d 874, 875-876). Here, defendant met her initial burden by

establishing that she had brought her vehicle to a safe stop and that

she did not rear-end or strike any vehicle. Plaintiff and the other

defendants failed to raise any inference of negligence on the part of

defendant with respect to any of the rear-end collisions that occurred

behind defendant after she had brought her vehicle to a stop.

All concur except FAHEY and VALENTINO, JJ., who dissent and vote to

affirm in the following Memorandum: We respectfully dissent and would

affirm the order denying the cross motion of Anna Torres (defendant)

for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and any cross

claims against her. In our view, defendant failed to meet her initial

burden of establishing that she did not engage in conduct that was a

proximate cause of the accident (see Negros v Brown, 15 AD3d 994, 995;

see also Hazzard v Burrowes, 95 AD3d 829, 830-831; Aguilar v Alonzo,

66 AD3d 927, 928; Zielinski v Van Pelt [appeal No. 2], 9 AD3d 874,

876). The papers submitted by defendant do not demonstrate that

defendant “ ‘maintain[ed] a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed

under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the [vehicle

in front of her]’ ” (Napolitano v Galletta, 85 AD3d 881, 882), nor do

those papers establish that defendant had brought her vehicle to a

safe stop when it was rear-ended immediately before the accident (see

Zielinski, 9 AD3d at 875-876). Here, although defendant did not make

contact with the vehicle in front of her, the deposition testimony she

submitted in support of her cross motion is silent as to the nature of

her stop, i.e., whether it was sudden or controlled. Moreover,

defendant did not explain the circumstances under which she stopped

her automobile by submitting an affidavit in support of her motion

clarifying or enhancing her deposition testimony. 

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court