Court Opinion

ID: 9964073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:09:58.996005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.793122
License: Public Domain

Aldabaan v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31404(U)
                     April 22, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158137/2021
                  Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 158137/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. HASA A. KINGO                                                  PART                             05M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          158137/2021
             NAJI ALDABAAN,
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE         08/14/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 - V -

             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOHN DOE                                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
            23,24,25,26
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                   Plaintiff, Naji Aldabaan ("Plaintiff') moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR § 3212,
            granting summary judgment on liability against Defendants, The City of New York ("City") and
            John Doe ("Doe") (collectively, "Defendants"), and dismissing Defendants' affirmative defense
            of comparative negligence. The City opposes the motion. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs
            motion is granted.

                                                                      BACKGROUND

                    On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries when he was riding as a passenger
            in a vehicle that was struck from the rear by a sanitation vehicle owned and operated by the City
            (NYSCEF Doc No. 19, Zekraus affirmation ,i,i 3, 8). Plaintiff was in the back seat of the vehicle
            as it was traveling on the US-I Upper Level exit ramp towards the Harlem River Drive (id. ,i 8).
            Plaintiff commenced this action on August 31, 2021, and moved for leave to file a late Notice of
            Claim (NYSCEF Doc No. 1-8). The motion was granted by order and decision dated October 28,
            2021 (NYSCEF Doc No. 11). Issue was joined when the City filed an answer on December 9,
            2021 (id. ,i 5). On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff presented for a hearing pursuant to General Municipal
            Law§ 50-h (id. ,i 6). Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on the issue ofliability, to dismiss
            the City's comparative negligence affirmative defense, and to set the matter down for trial as to
            damages only.

                   In support of his motion, Plaintiff contends that summary judgment is proper because the
            City violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) when it struck the vehicle Plaintiff was a
            passenger in from behind. In support of his motion, Plaintiff proffers his § 50-h testimony, the
            pleadings, and his affidavit to establish that Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck
            from the rear by a sanitation truck.

             158137/2021 ALDABAAN, NAJI vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                                   Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 158137/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

                   In opposition, the City argues that summary judgment is not proper because there are
            unresolved factual issues regarding comparative fault, the alleged damages suffered by Plaintiff,
            and causation that must be determined by a jury (NYSCEF Doc No. 26, Herzog affirmation ,i 3).
            The City takes no position as to fault and is "mindful that a vehicle's driver shall maintain a safe
            distance between his vehicle and the vehicle in front of him," but contends that Plaintiff has not
            shown that he was not negligent or that the driver of the vehicle he was a passenger in was not
            negligent (id. ,i,i 3, 6).

                                                         DISCUSSION

                     Pursuant to CPLR § 3212(b), a motion for summary judgment "shall be granted if, upon
            all the papers and proofs submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently
            to warrant the Court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party" (CPLR §
            3212[b ]). "The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must demonstrate that there are no
            material issues of fact in dispute, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" (Dallas-
            Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303,306 [1st Dept 2007]). The movant's burden is "heavy," and
            "on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-
            moving party" (William J Jenack Estate Appraisers and Auctioneers, Inc. v Rabizadeh, 22 NY3d
            470, 475 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Upon proffer of evidence
            establishing a prima facie case by the movant, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment
            bears the burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of
            material questions of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). To be a
            "material issue of fact" it "must be genuine, bona fide and substantial to require a trial" (Leumi
            Financial Corp. v Richter, 24 AD2d 855 [1st Dept 1965]). "A motion for summary judgment
            should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn
            from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility" (Ruiz v Griffin, 71 AD3d 1112, 1115
            [2d Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). However, "mere conclusions,
            expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" to overcome a
            motion for summary judgment (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

                     An innocent passenger cannot be found at fault under any circumstance giving rise to an
            accident [and] bears no culpability but "must still establish a defendant driver's liability under
            traditional principles of tort liability in order to prevail on the issue of liability against that driver"
            (Campbell v Mincello, 184 AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2020]; Oluwatayo v Dulinayan, 142 AD3d
            113 [1st Dept 2016]). Thus, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must
            establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the
            defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries (Rodriguez v City of New
            York, 31 NY3d 312 [2018]; Fernandez v Ortiz, 183 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2020]). It is well settled
            that "a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a), which obligates drivers to maintain safe
            distances between their cars and cars in front of them, and be aware of traffic conditions, including
            vehicle stoppages, is prima facie evidence of negligence" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § l 129[a];
            Maisonet v. Roman, 139 AD3d 121, 123 [1st Dept 2016]; Downey v Mazzioli, 137 AD3d 498,499
            [ I st Dept 2016] [Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of
            law on the issue ofliability, by submitting his affidavit averring that defendant's vehicle struck the
            vehicle plaintiff was riding in as a passenger in the rear]). To defeat a plaintiffs motion for
            summary judgment on liability for a rear end collision, "the driver of the rear vehicle [must] come

             158137/2021 ALDABAAN, NAJI vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                  Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                             2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158137/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

            forward with an adequate, nonnegligent explanation for the accident" ( Urena v GVC Ltd., 160
            AD3d 467,467 [1st Dept 2018]).

                     Here, Plaintiff's evidence establishes prima facie that the City violated Vehicle and Traffic
            Law § 1129(a) when a sanitation vehicle owned by the City and operated by a City employee
            acting in the scope of his employment struck Plaintiff from the rear on April 15, 2021. Under the
            Vehicle and Traffic Law, the driver of the sanitation vehicle was required to maintain a safe
            distance from the vehicle in front. Plaintiff's evidence, consisting of the notice of claim, 50-h
            hearing transcript, and affidavit establish that Plaintiff was riding in the back seat of a vehicle
            traveling on the US-I Upper Level exit ramp towards Harlem River Drive when the vehicle was
            struck from behind by a sanitation vehicle owned by the City and operated by a City employee
            acting in the scope of his employment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's evidence has established that the
            driver of the sanitation vehicle failed to adhere to the relevant Vehicle and Traffic Law requiring
            him to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle Plaintiff was riding in as a passenger. The City
            does not advance any facts to contradict this evidence, and further takes no position on the issue
            of fault. A defendant's violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se
            [Davis v Turner, 132 AD3d 603 [2015]). Significantly, the City has not come forward with a non-
            negligent explanation for the accident that would overcome Plaintiff's entitlement as a matter of
            law (Urena v GVC Ltd., 160 AD3d 467, 467 [1st Dept 2018]). A plaintiff does not have to
            demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault to obtain summary judgment on defendant's
            liability (Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 NY3d at 324-325, supra). Moreover, as an innocent
            passenger struck from the rear, Plaintiff's entitlement to summary judgment on the issue ofliability
            is not limited by potential issues of comparative negligence between the drivers of the vehicles
            (see Johnson v Phillips, 26 I AD2d 269, 272 [1st Dept 1999] ["it is well settled that the right of an
            innocent passenger to summary judgment is not in any way restricted by potential issues of
            comparative negligence as between defendant and the driver of the vehicle in front"]).

                    Nevertheless, questions of fact exist regarding the causation and damages, including
            comparative negligence between the two drivers, one of which has yet to be joined in this action.
            Additionally, even where a determination of fault is made, a plaintiff must prove that they
            sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of New York's No-Fault Law to recover damages
            from defendants for the plaintiff's alleged personal injuries (Kabir v County of Monroe, 16 NY3d
            217,222 n. 2 [2011]; Insurance Law§ 5104 [a]). While this does not bar summary judgment on
            the issue of liability, discovery of these issues must be completed prior to a trial on Plaintiff's
            damages.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is
            granted; and it is further

                     ORDERED that the City's affirmative defense of comparative negligence is dismissed; and
            it is further

             158137/2021 ALDABAAN, NAJI vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                             Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 158137/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

                    ORDERED that the clerk is directed to set this matter down for preliminary conference in
            the Differentiated Case Management Part on the next available date, to set a discovery schedule
            on the issue of causation, damages, and serious injury; and it is hereby

                    ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within 20 days from entry of this order, serve a copy of this
            order with notice of entry upon counsel for all parties hereto and upon the Clerk of the General
            Clerk's Office and shall serve and file with said Clerk a note of issue and statement of readiness
            and shall pay the fee therefor, and said Clerk shall cause the matter to be placed upon the calendar
            for such trial before the undersigned; and it is further

                   ORDERED that such service upon the General Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance
            with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
            Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website)].

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    4/22/2024
                      DATE                                                           HASAA. KIN
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED          GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             158137/2021 ALDABAAN, NAJI vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]