OPINION Upon consent of both self-represented parties, a trial was held before an arbitrator of the Civil Court on November 29, 2018. (22 NYCRR §208.41 [n][2]). The Claimant, Anthony Conte, sought an award in the amount of $850.00 for damages to his vehicle that is alleged to have been caused by the Defendant, Leonidas Delacruz. Based upon the evidence presented, the claim is dismissed.The TestimonyOn June 7, 2018, at approximately 9:00 p.m. at night, the Claimant was driving his 2010 Acura ZDX northbound on Lefferts Blvd. The Defendant was driving a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee directly behind the Claimant. At some point, after reaching the south side of the intersection of Lefferts Blvd and Atlantic Avenue, the Acura and Jeep allegedly made contact. The Claimant’s vehicle is alleged to have sustained numerous scratches and scuffs on the rear bumper because of the contact. The Defendant’s vehicle did not sustain any damage. Neither the Claimant nor the Defendant suffered any injuries.The Claimant testified that the Defendant caused the damages to his Acura as follows:The Acura had been stopped on Lefferts Blvd. in a northbound direction in front of the crosswalk, at the intersection with Atlantic Ave. for approximately ten seconds when the Claimant felt a light collision to the rear of the Acura. The Claimant put on the Acura’s hazard lights and exited the vehicle. He spoke with the Defendant while she remained seated in her Jeep. The Claimant avers that the Defendant admitted that she had sciatica and was unable to sufficiently apply the brakes in her Jeep. The Claimant entered a police report and seven photographs into evidence. Four of the photographs depicted the Acura and the Jeep where they came to rest immediately after the collision. Two of the photographs were taken during the daytime with the Acura in the same alleged position as it was after the collision. One photograph shows damages to the Acura’s rear bumper consisting of multiple scuff marks and scratches. The Claimant entered two estimates, one valued at $750.37 and another at $757.12, into evidence. The Claimant stated that he worked for DHL, regularly took defensive driving courses with Smith’s Defensive Driving (the last course having been completed on May 2017), has a TLC license, has a commercial driver’s license, and has a Class A driver’s license.The Defendant testified that she did not cause damage to the Claimant’s Acura as follows:While traveling northbound on Lefferts Blvd., she approached the south side of the intersection of Atlantic Ave. The Claimant was ahead of her and tried to go through the intersection as the traffic light turned red. She stopped her vehicle at the white line just before the south crosswalk. She observed the Claimant attempt to go through the intersection, stop the Acura just past the crosswalk in the south side of the intersection, back up and come to a rest just in front of the Jeep. The Defendant says she did not ever feel a collision but observed the Claimant exit the Acura, approach her window, and declare that she had rear-ended his Acura. The Defendant also stated that she also took defensive driver courses and has been driving for thirty-two years without an accident. She introduced one photograph taken at the scene of the alleged collision that depicts the front bumper of the Jeep and a partial view of the rear bumper of the Acura.The LawA driver approaching an intersection controlled by a traffic light may not stop a vehicle in a crosswalk or in an intersection (VTL §1202[a]). The driver must stop the vehicle at either (1) a clearly marked stop line, (2) on the near side of a marked crosswalk, or (3) where no crosswalk markings exit, at the point where the driver can first see the traffic approaching the intersection (VTL §1172[a]).A driver may only back up a vehicle on a roadway where the vehicle can be moved safely and does not interfere with other traffic. (VTL §1211 [a]). A driver that backs up a vehicle and collides with another vehicle that is stopped at a traffic control signal is the sole proximate cause of the collision. (Matos v. Salem Truck Leasing, 105 A.D.3d 916 [2d Dep't. 2013]; see also Portalatin v. City of New York, 165 A.D.3d 1302 [2d Dep't. 2018]).Finding of Facts and Conclusions of LawThe credible evidence weighs heavily in favor of the Defendant. In evaluating the testimony of the Claimant in conjunction with the photographic evidence, his testimony is not worthy of belief. (Trane v. Erfanian, 34 Misc.3d 147[A] [App. Term 2d Dep't. 2012]). However, in contrast, the Defendant’s testimony is credible and consistent with the photographic evidence. (Strenio v. Grunstein, 48 Misc.3d 131[A] [App. Term 2d Dep't. 2015].The Claimant specifically described the alleged collision as a light contact, and there was no testimony that the collision caused the Acura to move. Additionally, the Claimant did not move the Acura after the alleged collision, but he did take several photographs of the Acura and the Jeep in their relative position after the impact. There was no testimony that the vehicles were moved between the time of the accident and the time that the photographs were taken. The photographs clearly show that the vehicles were not in contact and had about one foot of space between them. If the Claimant had stopped before entering the crosswalk as he alleged, then the photographs should have depicted the Acura positioned before, not in, the crosswalk. Instead, the photographs show that it was the Defendant’s Jeep that was positioned before the white stop line that preceded the crosswalk (VTL §1172[a]), while the Claimant’s Acura is positioned in the crosswalk in violation of the law (VTL §1202[a]).The photographs of the Acura’s bumper and the photograph of the Jeep’s bumper also belies the Claimant’s testimony. The photographs of the Acura’s bumper taken immediately after the alleged collision shows multiple scuff marks and scratches along the length of the bumper. This is contrasted by the Defendant’s photograph of the front bumper of the Jeep, also taken immediately after the alleged collision, which shows that the Jeep’s front bumper is entirely devoid of any scuff marks, scratches, dents, or damage of any kind. Simply put, the bumper of the 2015 Jeep appeared as unmarred as the day it was driven out of the dealership. It defies logic and common sense that the Claimant’s Acura could have sustained all of the scratches and scuff marks along the length of its bumper from the alleged collision without causing so much as a scuff on the Defendant’s Jeep. The photographic evidence discredits the Claimant’s testimony.The credible evidence is consistent with the Defendant’s version of events. The Claimant drove the Acura past the crosswalk. The Defendant stopped her Jeep at the stop line. The Claimant backed up into the crosswalk and came to stop approximately twelve inches away from the Jeep’s bumper. There was no credible evidence of contact between the Acura and the Jeep, despite the Claimant’s assertions. However, even if there had been contact between the Acura and the Jeep, under these facts, the Claimant would be the sole proximate cause as a matter of law without any negligence on the part of the Defendant. (VTL §1211 [a]; Matos, supra; Portalatin, supra)Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. This Opinion shall be attached to the Notice of Judgment and filed with the clerk. (22 NYCRR §208.41[n][5]).The foregoing constitutes the opinion of the arbitrator.Dated: November 29, 2018Jamaica, New York
