| Delayhaye v Caledonia Limo & Car Serv., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02098 [49 AD3d 588] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michelle Delayhaye et al., Respondents, v Caledonia Limo& Car Service, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Nakia Trent Griffin et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] The Edelsteins, Faegenburg & Brown, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Evan M. Landa of counsel),for plaintiffs-respondents. Stockschlaeder, McDonald & Sules, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Roger E. Mumford of counsel),for defendants-respondents.
In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants CaledoniaLimo & Car Service, Inc., and Lincoln O. Phillips appeal, as limited by their brief, from so muchof an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 11, 2007, as denied theirmotion for summary judgment, in effect, dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar asasserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
"A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case ofnegligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operatorto rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision"(Ahmad v Grimaldi, 40 AD3d786 [2007]; see Russ v InvestechSec., 6 AD3d 602 [2004]). Here, the defendants Caledonia Limo & Car Service, Inc.,and Lincoln O. Phillips (hereinafter the defendants) established their prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by [*2]showing that the vehicle of the codefendants Nakia Griffin andYaneen Griffin struck the rear of their stopped vehicle. However, in opposition, the codefendantsrebutted the prima facie showing by adducing evidence that the defendants' vehicle suddenly andwithout warning stopped in the lane of traffic without adequate explanation (see Brodie v Global Asset Recovery, Inc.,12 AD3d 390 [2004]; Moran vSingh, 10 AD3d 707, 708 [2004]; Purcell v Axelsen, 286 AD2d 379, 380-381[2001]; Colonna v Suarez, 278 AD2d 355 [2000]; Maschka v Newman, 262AD2d 615 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion forsummary judgment, in effect, dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as assertedagainst them. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Covello, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.