Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability.
It is undisputed that plaintiff's vehicle was double-parked in the lane of travel, in violation of 34 RCNY 4-08(f)(1), when it was struck in the rear by defendants' vehicle. Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that her own negligence in double-parking in the traveling lane was not a proximate cause of the collision.
Student note: The Appellate Division expressly rejected plaintiff's argument that her double-parked car merely furnished the condition or occasion for the collision, rather than constituting one of its proximate causes. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that a rear-end collision is a foreseeable consequence of double-parking.
Case: Pickett v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., NY Slip Op 05607 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Leave to enter a default judgment.