| Jumandeo v Franks |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09035 [56 AD3d 614] |
| November 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Latchmin Jumandeo et al., Appellants, v Christine J.Franks, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric N. Wolpin, New York, N.Y. (Thomas G. Connolly of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated May 14, 2008, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
This action arises out of a two-vehicle collision on Route I-95 near an intersection withDelaware Route 8 in New Castle, Delaware. The plaintiffs established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting the affidavit ofthe plaintiff driver Samaroo Persaud (hereinafter the plaintiff) stating that he was traveling on theroadway when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle. "A rear-end collisionwith a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to theoperator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle tocome forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident" (Arias v Rosario,52 AD3d 551, 552 [2008], citing Smith v Seskin, 49 AD3d 628 [2008]; Ahmad vGrimaldi, 40 AD3d 786 [2007]; Campbell v City of Yonkers, 37 AD3d 750, 751[2007]; Emil Norsic & Son, Inc. v L.P. Transp., Inc., 30 AD3d 368 [2006]). "A claim thatthe driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut thepresumption of negligence" (Russ v Investech Sec., 6 AD3d 602 [2004]; see Arias vRosario, 52 AD3d at 552; Johnston v Spoto, 47 AD3d 888 [2008]; Campbell vCity of Yonkers, 37 AD3d at 751; Neidereger v Misuraca, 27 AD3d 537 [2006];Ayach v Ghazal, 25 AD3d 742 [2006]).[*2]
The defendant's contention in opposition, that she wastraveling at 15-20 miles per hour approximately two car lengths behind the plaintiff, when theplaintiff suddenly stopped, did not rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligentexplanation for the collision (see Lundy v Llatin, 51 AD3d 877 [2008]; Ahmad vGrimaldi, 40 AD3d 786 [2007]; Russ v Investech Sec., 6 AD3d 602 [2004]).Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have beengranted.
In light of the foregoing, the parties' remaining contentions need not be reached. Santucci,J.P., Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.