In the case of GT v. F* A* Foods, LLC, the defendants appealed an order from the Queens County Supreme Court, which had granted GT’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissed the defendants' affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and the emergency doctrine.
GT sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision involving a vehicle he was operating and a vehicle driven by EDD and owned by F* A* Foods, LLC. The plaintiff's vehicle was allegedly parked when it was struck from behind by the defendants' vehicle. In contrast, EDD claimed that the plaintiff's vehicle cut in front of him and double-parked, causing EDD to clip the plaintiff's vehicle's mirror while maneuvering around it.
The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting summary judgment on liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses. However, upon appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, thought while the plaintiff's evidence established a “prima facie case” of the defendants' negligence and that they were the sole proximate cause of the collision, the defendants' submissions, particularly EDD's affidavit, presented “material factual disputes” that warranted a trial.
As a result, the AD2 reversed the underlying order, and denied GT’s motion for summary judgment on liability and the dismissal of the defendants' affirmative defenses. The case will now proceed to address those contested issues.
Was that a kick in the rear for GT?
# # #
DECISION