Opinion
2002-02927
Submitted September 4, 2002.
October 1, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 14, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ricki Roer, Jodi Ritter, and Jeremy Salzman of counsel), for appellants.
Krantz Phillips, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Heath T. Buzin of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A rear-end collision with a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, imposing a duty of explanation on the operator (see Barile v. Lazzarini, 222 A.D.2d 635; Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583). The operator is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by the unexplained rear-end collision (see Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 135), since he or she is in the best position to excuse the collision through, for example, a mechanical failure (see Carter v. Castle Elec. Contr. Co., 26 A.D.2d 83, 85). If the operator cannot come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the plaintiff may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law (see Starace v. Inner Circle Qonexions, 198 A.D.2d 493). In this case, the defendants failed to come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference that the subject accident was proximately caused by their negligence.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.