| Avant v Cepin Livery Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04924 [74 AD3d 533] |
| June 10, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Natalie Avant, Plaintiff, v Cepin Livery Corp.,Respondent, and Charlene Renee Herrera et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered August 14, 2009, which,insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimouslyreversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enterjudgment in favor of appellants dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them.
Plaintiff was a passenger in the backseat of defendant Cepin Livery Corp.'s vehicle whenthat vehicle struck the back of appellants' vehicle, which was stopped at a red light, beforehitting another car; plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Under thecircumstances, summary judgment in favor of appellants is warranted because when such arear-end collision occurs, the owner and operator of the front vehicle are entitled to summaryjudgment on liability unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a nonnegligentexplanation for the collision (seeMullen v Rigor, 8 AD3d 104 [2004]; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271[1999]). Here, the opposition failed to provide such a nonnegligent explanation (see Grimes-Carrion v Carroll, 13AD3d 125 [2004]).
Contrary to the finding of the motion court, depositions are not needed since the opponentsof the motion had personal knowledge of the facts (cf. CPLR 3212 [f]), and failed to[*2]meet their obligation of laying bare their proof andpresenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Morgan v New York Tel.,220 AD2d 728 [1995]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz and Acosta,JJ.