Kropp v. Pimentel
Docket 2024-09535
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02640
- Docket
- 2024-09535
Appeal from an order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence in a personal injury action
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence in a rear-end collision case. The plaintiff showed he was slowing for a red light when the defendant's vehicle struck his car from behind, establishing a presumption of the defendant's negligence. The defendants' evidence that the plaintiff made a sudden stop and that their car skidded on wet pavement did not provide a sufficient nonnegligent explanation or show the skid was unavoidable, so no triable issue of fact was created.
Issues Decided
- Whether a rear-end collision established prima facie negligence by the driver of the rear vehicle such that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence
- Whether the defendant driver provided a sufficient nonnegligent explanation (sudden stop and skidding on wet pavement) to rebut the inference of negligence
Court's Reasoning
A rear-end collision with a stopping vehicle creates a presumption of negligence by the rear driver and shifts to that driver the burden to produce a nonnegligent explanation. The plaintiff's affirmation showed he was slowing for a red light when struck, establishing entitlement to judgment on liability and to dismissal of the comparative negligence defense. The defendant's claim that the plaintiff suddenly stopped and that his vehicle skidded on wet pavement failed because he did not show the skid was unavoidable, so no triable issue of fact existed.
Authorities Cited
- Yonghong Xia v Zhao Xian Zeng219 AD3d 914, 915
- Fischetti v Simonovsky227 AD3d 670, 671
- Greco v Altice USA, Inc.230 AD3d 655, 656
Parties
- Plaintiff
- James D. Kropp
- Appellant
- Gregory Neil Pimentel, Jr.
- Appellant
- Islip Car & Truck Recycling, Inc.
- Judge
- Maureen T. Liccione
- Judge
- Francesca E. Connolly
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Supreme Court order date (appealed from)
- 2024-06-10
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed to damages phase
The plaintiff should continue pursuing proof of damages in the trial court since liability has been established.
- 2
Consider further appeal
The defendants may consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other appropriate relief if they believe reversible error exists.
- 3
Preserve records and evidence
Both parties should preserve and organize medical records, repair estimates, and witness statements relevant to damages and any potential further appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on liability because his car was struck from behind and the defendants did not provide an adequate nonnegligent explanation.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiff, James D. Kropp, who pursued damages for personal injuries, and the defendants, driver Gregory Pimentel and vehicle owner Islip Car & Truck Recycling, Inc., are directly affected.
- What happens next in the case?
- Because liability was decided for the plaintiff, the case will proceed on damages unless the defendants seek further appellate relief.
- Why didn't the defendants' wet-pavement and skid explanation work?
- Their driver failed to show that the skid was unavoidable or otherwise provide a credible nonnegligent explanation to rebut the presumption of negligence from a rear-end collision.
- Can the defendants appeal further?
- They may seek further appellate review to a higher court, but the Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment ruling in this decision.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Kropp v Pimentel - 2026 NY Slip Op 02640 Kropp v Pimentel 2026 NY Slip Op 02640 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department James D. Kropp, respondent, v Gregory Neil Pimentel, Jr., et al., appellants. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2024-09535, (Index No. 629906/23) Francesca E. Connolly, J.P. Valerie Brathwaite Nelson Phillip Hom Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ. Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York, NY (Leila Cardo of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of John Coco, PLLC (Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho, NY [Michael Cassell], of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Maureen T. Liccione, J.), dated June 10, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the rear of his vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant Gregory Neil Pimentel, Jr. (hereinafter the defendant driver), and owned by the defendant Islip Car & Truck Recycling, Inc. The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence, contending that negligence of the defendant driver in striking the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident. In an order dated June 10, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion. The defendants appeal. "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" ( Yonghong Xia v Zhao Xian Zeng , 219 AD3d 914, 915 [internal quotation marks omitted]). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle 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 ( see Fischetti v Simonovsky , 227 AD3d 670, 671; Yawagyentsang v Safeway Constr. Enters., LLC , 225 AD3d 827). Although "[a] plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant's affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence . . . on the part of the plaintiff" ( Greco v Altice USA, Inc. , 230 AD3d 655, 656 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting his own affirmation, which demonstrated that his vehicle was slowing down for a red traffic light ahead when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants' vehicle ( see Mahmud v Feng Ouyang , 208 AD3d 861, 862; Lopez v Dobbins , 164 AD3d 776, 777). The plaintiff's affirmation also established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by demonstrating that he was not negligent in the happening of the accident ( see Mahmud v Feng Ouyang , 208 AD3d at 862; Lopez v Dobbins , 164 AD3d at 777). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver's assertion in his affirmation that the plaintiff's vehicle made a sudden stop and that, as a result, the defendant driver's vehicle skidded on the wet pavement during heavy rain was an insufficient nonnegligent explanation to rebut the inference of negligence since he failed to demonstrate that his vehicle's skid was unavoidable. The defendant driver's affirmation also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff contributed to the happening of the accident ( see Mosquera v Roach , 151 AD3d 1056, 1057). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence. CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, HOM and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph