Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing an affirmance of summary judgment before the Appellate Division, First Department, on behalf of Maritza Deliz. The panel—consisting of Justices Moulton, Gesmer, Scarpulla, Rosado, and Michael—unanimously upheld the dismissal of all claims and cross-claims against Ms. Deliz in a multi-party action arising from a fatal rear-end collision.
Maritza Deliz was operating her vehicle in the Bronx when it was struck from behind by a garbage truck owned by Avid Waste Systems and operated by Stanley Davis. The court found that Deliz met her prima facie burden by showing that she slowed down lawfully to avoid exposed manhole covers and that Davis failed to maintain a safe following distance as required under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a).
The defense argued that Deliz made a sudden stop which contributed to the accident, but the court rejected these claims as insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence in rear-end cases. Notably, Davis admitted he only saw Deliz's vehicle at the moment of impact and could not confirm whether her brake lights were even visible.
The court also dismissed arguments raised by co-defendant Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., finding no evidence that Deliz’s conduct was a proximate cause of the crash. Conflicting testimony about which lane Deliz was in prior to the collision was similarly deemed immaterial—Davis was negligent either way.
This decision reinforces key standards around rear-end liability and highlights the effectiveness of our defense team in shielding clients from unwarranted exposure. Congratulations to Gerard and the team on this well-earned appellate win.
Deliz v. Davis et al., Index Nos. 29144/17, 31927/17, 21117/18, 50004/18 (1st Dep’t 2025)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing an affirmance of summary judgment before the Appellate Division, First Department, in favor of our client, Maritza Deliz. The ruling, issued by a panel consisting of Hon. Peter H. Moulton, Hon. Ellen Gesmer, Hon. Andrea Masley, Hon. Bahaati Pitt-Burke Scarpulla, and Hon. Manuel J. Rosado, upheld the dismissal of all claims, cross-claims, and counterclaims asserted against Ms. Deliz.
This appeal stemmed from a fatal rear-end collision involving a garbage truck operated by defendant Stanley Davis and owned by Avid Waste Systems, Inc. The defense successfully demonstrated that Ms. Deliz, who was slowing to avoid exposed manhole covers, was struck from behind—a scenario that triggers a presumption of negligence on the part of the rear driver under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a). The Court held that the defendants failed to offer a nonnegligent explanation and that Davis’s testimony admitting he did not see Ms. Deliz’s vehicle until impact was insufficient to rebut the presumption.
The First Department also rejected arguments by co-defendant Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., finding no evidence that Ms. Deliz’s operation of her vehicle proximately caused the crash. The Court emphasized that drivers are expected to anticipate foreseeable traffic conditions, including slowing for road hazards, and reaffirmed that claims of a “sudden stop” do not absolve a rear driver of liability absent a credible alternative explanation.
This decision reinforces critical legal standards governing rear-end collisions and safe following distances, and further highlights the importance of thorough briefing and precise witness testimony in defending against speculative liability arguments. Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara on this impactful appellate victory.
Krmic v. Corrie, Index No. 33353/19 (1st Dep’t 2025)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for securing an affirmance of summary judgment before the Appellate Division, First Department. The case was heard before a panel including Hon. Dianne T. Renwick, Hon. Cynthia S. Kern, Hon. Anil C. Singh, Hon. Peter H. Moulton, and Hon. John R. Higgitt. This decision reinforces the strict evidentiary standards for proving a serious injury under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d).
The plaintiff alleged cervical spine injuries, including whiplash-type trauma and the need for spinal surgery, following a 2016 motor vehicle accident. The defense established prima facie that the plaintiff’s injuries were degenerative and unrelated to the accident. A radiologist’s expert opinion confirmed that the plaintiff’s MRI findings, including osteophyte disc complexes and spondylosis, predated the crash and showed no acute traumatic injury. The defendants’ neurologist further noted that the plaintiff’s own treating orthopedist found normal or near-normal range of motion in the months following the accident, undermining any claim of permanent or significant limitation.
While the plaintiff’s expert attempted to support the claim, his examination took place six years after the accident, and he failed to reconcile his findings with earlier medical records showing no functional impairment. The court held that this late examination was too remote in time to establish causation. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s 90/180-day claim, noting that he returned to work just two weeks after the collision and failed to submit admissible evidence of substantial impairment to daily activities.
This ruling ensured that an unfounded claim did not survive to trial. Congratulations to Gerard for another outstanding appellate victory.
