A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see Carhuayano v J R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413, 414; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 AD3d 353; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576). If the operator of the moving vehicle cannot come forward with evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the occupants and owner of the stationary vehicle are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability ( see Piltser v Donna Lee Mgt. Corp., 29 AD3d 973; Dileo v Greenstein, 281 AD2d 586; Leonard v City of New York, 273 AD2d 205, 206).
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see Milskiy v. Solanky, 8 AD3d 353; Bustillo v. Matturro, 292 AD2d 554, 555; Leonard v. City of New York, 273 AD2d 205). If the operator of the moving vehicle cannot come forward with evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the occupants and owner of the stationary vehicle are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability ( see Dileo v. Greenstein, 281 AD2d 586; Leonard v. City of New York, supra at 206; Lopez v. Minot, 258 AD2d 564).
It is well-established that a rear-end collision creates a prima facie case of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Milsky v. Solanky, 8 A.D.3d 353 (2d Dept 2004); Macauley v. Elrac, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 584 (2d Dept 2004); Piltser v. Donna Lee Mgmt. Corp., 29 A.D.3d 973 (2d Dept 2006). In order to rebut this inference of negligence, the driver of that vehicle must provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision.
A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle-thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Xian Hong Pan v Buglione, 101 A.D.3d 706,955 N.Y.S.2d 375 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 A.D.3d 736,846 N.Y.S.2d 309 [2d Dept 2007], citing Carbuayano v J&R Hacking, 28 A.D.3d 413,444, 813 N.Y.S.2d 162; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 A.D.3d 353, 777 N.Y.S.2d 734; Gaeta v Carter, 6 A.D.3d 576, 775 N.Y.S.2d 86). Drivers must maintain safe distances between their cars and cars in front of them (Vehicle and Traffic Law S 1129 [a]) and this rule imposes on them a duty to be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages, to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 271, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1stDept 1999]).
The certified copy of the police accident report indicates that defendant Kielb stated "when he was stopped and when light turned green he went to go, and looked down briefly and struck" the plaintiffs. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Xian Hong Pan v Buglione, 101 A.D.3d 706, 955 N.Y.S.2d 375 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 A.D.3d 736, 846 N.Y.S.2d 309 [2d Dept 2007], citing Carhuayano v J&R Hacking, 28 A.D.3d 413, 44,, 813 N.Y.S.2d 162; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 A.D.3d 353, 777 N.Y.S.2d 734; Gaeta v Carter, 6 A.D.3d 576, 775 N.Y.S.2d 86). Drivers must maintain safe distances between their cars and cars in front of them (Vehicle and Traffic Law $ 1129 [a]) and this rule imposes on them a duty to be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages, to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 271, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1st Dept 1999]).
It is well-settled that where a vehicle is lawfully stopped, there is a duty imposed upon the operators of vehicles traveling behind it in the same direction to come to a timely halt (Parise v Meltzer, 204 AD2d 295, 611 NYS2d 291, 292 [2d Dept 1994]). Accordingly, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 846 NYS2d 309 [2d Dept 2007], citing Carhuayano v J & R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413, 414, 813 NYS2d 162; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 AD3d 353, 777 NYS2d 734; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576, 775 NYS2d 86). Defendant Seabrooks failed to present a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision, since a driver of a vehicle to the rear of another vehicle is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance to avoid a collision (see Giangrasso v Callahan, 87 AD3d 521, 928 NYS2d 68 [2d Dept 2011]).
It is well-settled that where a vehicle is lawfully stopped, there is a duty imposed upon the operators of vehicles traveling behind it in the same direction to come to a timely halt (Parise v Meltzer, 204 AD2d 295, 611 NYS2d 291, 292 [2d Dept 1994]). Accordingly, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 846 NYS2d 309 [2d Dept 2007], citing Carhuayano v J & R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413, 414, 813 NYS2d 162; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 AD3d 353, 777 NYS2d 734; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576, 775 NYS2d 86). Defendant Seabrooks failed to present a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision, since a driver of a vehicle to the rear of another vehicle is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance to avoid a collision (see Giangrasso v Callahan, 87 AD3d 521, 928 NYS2d 68 [2d Dept 2011]).
. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Xian Hong Pan v Buglione, 101 AD3d 706, 955 NYS2d 375 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 846 NYS2d 309 [2d Dept 2007], citing Carhuayano v J & R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413, 414, 813 NYS2d 162; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 AD3d 353, 777 NYS2d 734; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576, 775 NYS2d 86). The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the defendant failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Cortes v Whelan, 83 AD3d 763, 922 NYS2d 419 [2d Dept 2011]).
. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Xian Hong Pan v Buglione, 101 AD3d 706, 955 NYS2d 375 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 846 NYS2d 309 [2d Dept 2007], citing Carhuayano v J & R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413, 414, 813 NYS2d 162; Milskiy v Solanky, 8 AD3d 353, 777 NYS2d 734; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576, 775 NYS2d 86). The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the defendant failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Cortes v Whelan, 83 AD3d 763, 922 NYS2d 419 [2d Dept 2011]).
"A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on 'that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision' (citations omitted)." Reitz v. Seagate Trucking, Inc.,71 A.D.3d 975 (2nd Dept. 2010); Ortiz v. Fage USA Corp., 69 A.D.3d 914 (2nd Dept. 2010); Lampkin v. Chan, 68 A.D.3d 727 (2nd Dept. 2009); see, Oguzturk v. General Elec. Co., 65 A.D.3d 1110 (2nd Dept. 2009); Ramirez v. Konstanzer, 61 A.D.3d 837 (2nd Dept. 2009); Johnston v. Spoto, 47 A.D.3d 888 (2nd Dept. 2008); Emil Norsic & Son, Inc. v. L.P. Transp., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 368 (2nd Dept. 2006); Milskiy v Solanky, 8 A.D.3d 353 (2nd Dept.2004); see, also, Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906 (2008). The operator of the moving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision as the operator is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on a wet pavement, or some other reasonable cause.