| Foti v Fleetwood Ride, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09953 [57 AD3d 724] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Briana Foti et al., Respondents, v Fleetwood Ride, Inc., et al.,Appellants, and City of Mount Vernon et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Babaja & Guarneri, Yonkers, N.Y. (John A. Guarneri of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents. Helen M. Blackwood, Corporation Counsel, Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Nichelle A. Johnson ofcounsel), for defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Fleetwood Ride, Inc.,and Anthony Frimpong appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.),entered April 22, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint andall cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligencewith respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the movingvehicle to come forward with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Hughes v Cai, 55 AD3d 675[2008]; Arias v Rosario, 52 AD3d551 [2008]; Harrington v Kern, 52AD3d 473 [2008]; Delayhaye vCaledonia Limo & Car Serv., Inc., 49 AD3d 588 [2008]; Klopchin v Masri, 45 AD3d 737[2007]). "One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision is a sudden stop of the leadvehicle" (Chepel v Meyers, 306 AD2d 235, 237 [2003]; see Klopchin v Masri, 45 AD3d 737 [2007]).[*2]
In support of their motion for summary judgment, theappellants submitted deposition testimony which demonstrated that their stopped vehicle was struck inthe rear by a vehicle owned and operated, respectively, by the defendants City of Mount Vernon andLowell E. Anderson. However, the deposition testimony upon which the appellants relied also indicatedthat their vehicle came to an abrupt stop in the middle of the roadway after the driver was informed thathe was headed in the wrong direction. Under these circumstances, there is an issue of fact as towhether the negligent operation of the appellants' vehicle caused or contributed to the accident (see Boockvor v Fischer, 56 AD3d 405[2008]; Delayhaye v Caledonia Limo & CarServ., Inc., 49 AD3d 588 [2008]; Klopchin v Masri, 45 AD3d 737 [2007]; Morrison v Montzoutsos, 40 AD3d717 [2007]; Brodie v Global AssetRecovery, Inc., 12 AD3d 390 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.