PMT Defeats Summary Judgment Motion in Rear-End MVA Litigation

By Jeffrey T. Miller and Gabrielle Scibetta.

PMT associate Gabrielle Scibetta secured a significant win and defeated a plaintiffs’ summary judgment liability motion in a rear-end motor vehicle accident litigation. Plaintiffs, judges, and claims professionals routinely assume liability in rear-end accidents. In fact, there is an evidentiary negligence presumption when one car drives into the back of another car.  Nevertheless, Scibetta’s diligent and strategic defense, skilled writing, and oral advocacy, persuaded a Brooklyn jurist to deny a motion that often is granted as a matter of routine. In no small part, Scibetta’s mastery of the intricacies of New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law, interpretative case law, and New York procedural and evidence precedents provided a compelling aura of credibility to her comprehensive presentation.

In Carlos Sanchez Contreras, Cristell Sanchez Alvarado, and Eduard Cedeno Arellano v. Gregory E. Blyden (Kings County, NY Index No.: 509863/2023 – PMT: Automobile), the defendant driver, represented by PMT, drove into the back of another car. Plaintiffs quickly moved for partial summary judgment, citing a litany of cases as precedent for the principle that a driver’s negligence is established when one car rear-ends another. In response, PMT opposed the motion arguing that the Plaintiff driver had been negligent, had violated Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1163(c), which imposes on a driver the duty not to stop suddenly without proper warning, and caused the accident. Scibetta’s comprehensive submission included a detailed driver affidavit, specific and on-point binding appellate citations about causation, and highlighted an admission by the Plaintiff driver contrary to his summary judgment motion. In short, Scibetta gave the Court compelling reasons to require witnesses to be cross-examined to determine what had happened despite the indisputable fact that Scibetta’s client drove a car into the rear of another car on a New York highway.

Following spirited oral arguments by skilled counsel for both parties, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion. In addition, the court agreed that the circumstances justified a counter claim by Scibetta’s driver-client against the Plaintiff driver.

This result may be atypical in “hit in the rear” MVA cases, but for PMT lawyers like Scibetta, it is just one example of representing clients’ interests vigorously, knowing the law, and presenting the facts (even when seemingly adverse) persuasively.

Should you have any questions, please call our office at (914) 703-6300 or contact:

Jeffrey T. Miller, Executive Partner
jmiller@pmtlawfirm.com

Jeffrey D. Schulman, Executive Partner
jschulman@pmtlawfirm.com