Opinion
2005-831 KC.
Decided February 21, 2006.
Appeal by defendant Dennis Bland from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered March 15, 2005, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim against him, and cross appeal by plaintiff Brenda Catanzaro from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.Cross appeal by plaintiff Brenda Catanzaro dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 731.8.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs and defendant Dennis Bland's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claim asserted against him granted.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ
The instant action arises out of an accident in which a vehicle owned by defendant Jui Kuo Chou and operated by defendant Debbie Chou struck the rear of a vehicle owned and operated by defendant Dennis Bland, which struck the rear of a vehicle owned and operated by plaintiff Brenda Catanzaro. Defendant Bland, in support of his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim asserted against him, submitted deposition testimony which indicated that his vehicle was stopped at a red light behind the Catanzaro vehicle, when the Chou vehicle hit his vehicle from the rear, and propelled his vehicle into the Catanzaro vehicle. In opposition to the cross motion, defendants Chou submitted an affirmation of counsel and referred to the deposition testimony of Ms. Chou. Said testimony, however, did not raise a triable issue of fact.
It is well established that "a rear-end collision into a lawfully-stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability in favor of the operator of the stationary vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle" ( Parise v. Meltzer, 204 AD2d 295, 295). If the operator of the moving vehicle does not come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, then the operator of the stationary vehicle may be properly awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability ( see Leonard v. City of New York, 273 AD2d 205).
There was no evidence presented by the defendants Chou to show that there was any fault either on the part of plaintiff Catanzaro or on the part of defendant Bland. The deposition testimony of Ms. Chou, the operator of the moving vehicle, was not sufficient to rebut the inference of negligence on her part. There being no triable issue of fact raised as to liability, the court below therefore erred in denying defendant Bland's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim asserted against him.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.