the below is the case for to do

in own writing and the method should be this in points and in own writing

reasoning should be the court original

THESE THINGS IN this i dont need like data, graph, link, or other material

IFACTS

2-procedural posture

3-issue

4-descision

5-reasoning

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX: l.A.S. PART 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------X JEROME JONES, Plaintiff.

- against

- ROBERT TORRES NUNEZ, JULIAN TORREZ, BETH A. FIELDS and CHARLES A. FIELDS, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X John R. Higgitt, J. DECISION AND ORDER Index No. 32618/20 I 9E The parties' motions for summary judgment (motion sequences # 1 and #2) are consolidated fo r disposition herein, as they involve common questions of law and fact. This is a negligence action to recover damages fo r personal injuries that plaintiff allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on March 15, 20 19. Defendants Beth A. Fields and Charles A. Fields ("the Fields defendants .. ) seek summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and the cross claims against them on the ground that they are not liable for the accident (motion sequence no. 1 ). Plaintiff moves fo r partial summary judgment on the issue of the liability of defendants Nunez and To1Tez ("the Nunez defendants'') for causing the subj ect accident and for dismissal of the unez defendants affirmati ve defense alleging plaintiffs culpable conduct (motion sequence no. 2). For the reasons that fo llow. the Fields defendants motion and plaintiffs motion are granted. The Field defendants seek summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and the cross claims against them on the ground that they are not liable for the accident. In support of their motion, the Field defendants submit the pleadings, the poli ce accident repo11, and defendant Charl es Fields' affidavit.

Defendant Charles Fields averred that, at the time of the accident. he was travelling behind plaintiffs vehicle when he brought his vehicle to a stop due to a red traffic signal. Defendant Charles Fields averred that as he was stopped behind plaintifrs vehicle his vehicle was struck in the rear by the unez defendants' vehicle. Defendant Charl es Field averred that the impact to the rear of his vehicle was heavy, causing his vehicle to move forward and strike plaintiffs vehicle. Plaintiff supports his motion with the pleadings. the police accident report and his affidavit. Plaintiff averred that at the time of the accident he was travelling on Ea t 16 1 Street in Bronx County when he had to bring his vehicle to a stop due to a red traffic signal. Plaintiff averred that after he was stopped for approximately 30 seconds his vehicle was struck in the rear by the Field defendants vehicle. Plaintiff averred that he subsequently learned that the Field defendants vehicle was struck in the rear by the unez defendants vehicle. cau ing the Field defendants vehicle to strike plaintiffs vehicle. Vehicle and Traffic Law l l 29(a) states that a --driver of a motor vehicle sha ll not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent. having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway .. (see Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 Y2d 985, 988 l 19931). A rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the rearmost dri er in a chain confronted with a stopped or stopping vehicle (see Cabrera 1 Rodriguez. 72 AD3d 553 [1 st Dept 20 IO]). and a presumption of nonnegligence of the driver of the lead vehic le (see Soto-Maroquin v Mel/et, 63 AD3d 449 [I st Dept 2009)). The Field defendants made a prima facie sho\ ing that they are not liable fo r the accident as their vehicle was struck in the rear by the unez defendants vehicle, and plaintiff made a

prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the Nunez defendants' li ability. In opposition to the moving parties motions 1 , the Nunez defendants fa iled to raise a triable issue of fact as to their liability for the subject accident or the Field defendants' liability for causing the subject acc ident. The Nunez defendants assert that the motions are premature because depositions have not been completed. These moti ons, however, are not premature because .. the informati on as to why the [the Nunez de fendants vehicle] struck the rear end of [the Fie ld defendants vehicle] reasonably rests within [the Nunez defendants dri ver's] own knowledge" (Rodriguez v Garcia, 154 AD3d 58 1, 58 1 [I st Dept 2017]; see Castaneda v DO & CO New York Catering. Inc .. 144 AD3d 407 [I st Dept 20 16]). The mere hope that a party might be able to uncover some evidence during the discovery process is insufficient to deny summary judgment (see Castaneda. supra: Avant v Cepin livery Corp., 74 AD3d 533 [I st Dept 20 1 O]; Planned Bldg. Servs .. Inc. v S.L. Green Realty Corp .. 300 AD2d 89 [I st Dept 2002]), and the non-moving parties offered nothing to suggest that additiona l discovery may yield information bearing on whether de fendant Charles Field operated his vehic le in a negligent manner or that defendant Nunez had a non-neg ligent explanation fo r the accident. Notably, the Nunez defendants fa il ed to submit an affidavit controverting the Field defendants' or plaintiffs respecti ve versions of the accident. As to the aspect of plaintiffs motion seeking dismissal of the unez de fendants first affirmati ve defense all eging plaintiffs comparative fau lt, plaintiff made a prima facie showing 1 Plaintiff does not oppose the Field defendants motion (see NYSCEF doc. no. 37).

that he bears no such fault (see Soto-Maroquin v Melle/. 63 AD3d 449 [1 st Dept 2009]), and the Nunez defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the Field defendants motion for summary judgment is granted. and the complaint as against them and the cross claims against them are dismissed; and it is further ORDERED. that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Field defendants dismissing the complaint as against them and the cross claims against them; and it is further ORDERED, that the aspect of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the Nunez defendant' liability is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the aspect of plaintiffs motion seeking the dismissal of the Nunez defendants first affirmative defense is granted, and that defense is dismissed. The parties are reminded that a compliance conference has been scheduled before the undersigned on November 13, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom 407. This constitutes the decision and order o f the court. Dated: July 2, 2020