Opinion
2005-546 QC.
Decided July 3, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Bernice Daun Siegal, J.), entered January 25, 2005. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Order reversed without costs and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability granted.
PRESENT:: GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see e.g., Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc., 12 AD3d 390). A driver approaching another vehicle from the rear has a duty to maintain a safe distance so as to avoid a collision ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Leal v. Wolff, 224 AD2d 392; see also Shameh v. Richmond County Ambulance Serv., 279 AD2d 564), and "[a] claim that the driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence" ( see Ayach v. Ghazal, 25 AD3d 742, 743, quoting Russ v. Investech Sec., 6 AD3d 602, 602).
Herein, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by proffering examination before trial testimony that the vehicle in which plaintiff's subrogor was a passenger was stopped at a red light when defendant's vehicle struck the rear of said vehicle. Defendant, however, failed to rebut plaintiff's prima facie showing by his examination before trial testimony that the subject vehicle "stopped abruptly" in front of him. Accordingly, we find that the court below should have granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability ( see Ayach v. Ghazal, 25 AD3d 742, supra).
Golia, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.