# Pitchure v. Kandefer Plumbing & Heating

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · June 16, 2000 · 273 A.D.2d 790

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6054447

## Case

- **Full name:** Angella R. Pitchure v. Kandefer Plumbing & Heating
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** June 16, 2000
- **Citations:** 273 A.D.2d 790; 710 N.Y.S.2d 259; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Kehoe
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6054447

## Opinion text

Order reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she sustained when her stopped vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by defendant Kan-defer Plumbing & Heating and driven by defendant Brian C. Martin. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It is well established that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle (see, Diller v City of N. Y. Police Dept., 269 AD2d 143 ; Baron v Murray, 268 AD2d 495 ; see also, Downs v Toth, 265 AD2d 925 ). The presumption of negligence imposes a duty of explanation with respect to the operation of the rear vehicle (see, Levine v Taylor, 268 AD2d 566 , citing Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132, 135 , and Gambino v City of New York, 205 AD2d 583 ). In order to rebut the presumption, the driver of the rear vehicle must submit a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see, Diller v City of N. Y. Police Dept., supra; Hanak v Jani, 265 AD2d 453 ). Here, Martin submitted a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see, Hanak v Jani, supra), and it is for the jury to determine whether he breached his duty to keep a proper lookout and maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and distance.
All concur except Kehoe, J., who dissents and votes to affirm, in the following Memorandum.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6054447. Public record. Not legal advice.