| Garner v Chevalier Transp. Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00503 [58 AD3d 802] |
| January 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Samuel Garner, Appellant, v Chevalier TransportationCorp. et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Lustig & Brown, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (April Forbes of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 15, 2008, which denied his motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew upon the completion ofdiscovery.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
On June 23, 2004, the plaintiff's vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by thedefendant Chevalier Transportation Corp. and operated by the defendant Jeffery Martin. On hismotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established his prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit in which he stated that hisvehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicleestablishes a prima facie case of negligence against the driver and owner of the moving vehicle,and imposes a duty of explanation on its driver (see Johnston v Spoto, 47 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]). In opposition,the defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Myrie vAtehortua, 275 AD2d 699 [2000]). Furthermore, contrary to the contention of thedefendants, the plaintiff's motion was not premature (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45AD3d 736, 737 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff'smotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, McCarthy andBelen, JJ., concur.