Pro Forma Counterclaim Struck Down In Clear-Cut Queens Motor-Vehicle Case

Jorge Sanchez Nava, et al. v. David Stander, (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. Index No. 707154/2024)

It is an underappreciated hazard of starting a lawsuit that the plaintiff can be sued right back.  Yet, regardless of whether the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff’s injuries are as great or greater than those of the plaintiff who brought the matter to court, the counterclaim plaintiff still must prove a case.  Recently, the Queens County Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff/counterclaim defendant who was injured in a motor-vehicle accident caused by defendant/counterclaim plaintiff, dismissing a counterclaim.

In Sanchez Nava, et al. v. Stander, plaintiffs claimed they were driving along East Meadow Avenue when defendant/ counterclaim plaintiff (Stander) exited a public park, disregarding a stop sign, and struck plaintiff’s vehicle causing personal injuries to both plaintiffs. In his answer to the plaintiffs’ summons and complaint, defendant included a counterclaim stating that the accident was caused by the plaintiff driver’s negligence.

At deposition the plaintiff driver testified that his vehicle was struck on the passenger side between the front and back doors as defendant’s vehicle traveled out of a parking spot near the park onto East Meadow Avenue. It was undisputed that there was no stop sign or other traffic control device where East Meadow Avenue intersected the exit from the park that the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the road from.  At defendant/counterclaim plaintiff’s deposition, he admitted that his view of East Meadow Avenue was obstructed by parked cars and that he did not stop at the stop sign which was located at the exit of the parking lot.

At the conclusion of discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff/ counterclaim defendant sought dismissal of the counterclaim on the grounds that he was not liable for the accident whatsoever and that the accident (and his/co-plaintiff’s injuries) were caused by defendant’s disregard of the stop sign at the exit to the parking lot. At no point did defendant claim either that there was no stop sign at the exit, that he stopped at the stop sign, or that he had a clear view of East Meadow Avenue as he left the parking lot. Defendant/ counterclaim plaintiff did not stop or yield the right-of-way, in violation of New York States Vehicle and Traffic Laws §§ 1142 and 1172, and thus he caused the accident.

The Court agreed with plaintiff/counterclaim defendant and granted his motion to summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim. In its order, the judge concluded that the deposition testimony established that defendant simply entered the roadway without yielding the right-of-way. At no point did defendant raise a triable issue of fact or show that plaintiff contributed to the accident. The Court also denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment holding that defendant failed to make a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102(d).

AGF&J associate Josh Burton briefed the motion.