Opinion
2003-10514.
Decided May 24, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Denton Limo, Inc., and Esteban Nieves appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman Jacobson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Manna Morejon and Carmen A. Nicolaou of counsel), for appellants.
Diamond, Cardo, King, Peters Fodera, New York, N.Y. (Deborah F. Peters of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
This action arises from a multiple-vehicle collision in which a taxi owned by the defendant Denton Limo, Inc. (hereinafter Denton), and operated by the defendant Esteban Nieves was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant Robert Granata and operated by the defendant Susan Granata (hereinafter the Granata vehicle). The Granata vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the plaintiff David Velazquez. The Supreme Court denied the motion of Denton and Nieves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. We reverse.
A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the moving vehicle, requiring the operator of that vehicle to come forward with a non-negligent explanation for the accident ( see Shamah v. Richmond County Ambulance Serv., 279 A.D.2d 564, 565; Power v. Hupart, 260 A.D.2d 458; Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392, 393; Barile v. Lazzarini, 222 A.D.2d 635, 636). In response to the establishment by Denton and Nieves of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, Robert Granata and Susan Granata failed to raise a triable issue of fact by providing a reasonable, non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision ( see Dewar v. Padilla, 305 A.D.2d 629, 630).
Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Denton and Nieves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.