| Ramirez v Konstanzer |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03148 [61 AD3d 837] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Reina Ramirez et al., Respondents, v Richard G.Konstanzer, Appellant. |
—[*1] Block, O'Toole & Murphy LLP, New York, N.Y. (David L. Scher of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated February 26, 2008, which grantedthe plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On the afternoon of March 24, 2006, a motor vehicle operated by the plaintiff Reina Ramirez(hereinafter the plaintiff) on Route 110 in Suffolk County was struck from behind by a motorvehicle owned and operated by the defendant.
The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on theissue of liability by tendering the affidavit and deposition testimony of the plaintiff, whichindicated that she had been at a complete stop at a red light when her vehicle was struck in therear by the defendant's motor vehicle. " 'A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehiclecreates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, andimposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequatenonnegligent explanation for the accident' " (Jumandeo v Franks, 56 AD3d 614, 614 [2008], quoting Arias v Rosario, 52 AD3d 551,552 [2008]; see Smith v Seskin, 49AD3d 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 that the driver of the lead vehicle made a suddenstop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption [*2]of negligence' " (Jumandeo v Franks, 56 AD3d at 615,quoting Russ v Investech Sec., 6AD3d 602 [2004]; see Arias v Rosario, 52 AD3d at 552; Johnston v Spoto, 47 AD3d 888[2008]; Campbell v City of Yonkers, 37 AD3d at 751; Neidereger v Misuraca, 27 AD3d537 [2006]; Ayach v Ghazal,25 AD3d 742 [2006]). Thus, the defendant's contention, made in opposition to theplaintiffs' motion, that the plaintiff proceeded once the traffic light turned green but thensuddenly stopped, did not rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligentexplanation for the collision (see Jumandeo v Franks, 56 AD3d at 614-615; Lundy v Llatin, 51 AD3d 877[2008]; Russ v Investech Sec., 6AD3d 602 [2004]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Dickerson, JJ.,concur.