| Celentano v Moriarty |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06154 [75 AD3d 572] |
| July 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Joann Celentano et al., Appellants, v Catherine Moriarty,Respondent. |
—[*1] Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Daniel E. O'Neill and CynthiaDolan of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated June 1, 2009, 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.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence againstthe operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to provide anon-negligent explanation for the collision (see Carman v Arthur J. Edwards Mason Contr. Co., Inc., 71 AD3d813, 813-814 [2010]; Franco vBreceus, 70 AD3d 767, 768 [2010]). Here, the defendant failed to provide anon-negligent explanation for the collision. Her assertion that the plaintiffs' vehicle came to asudden stop in front of her vehicle is not supported by any evidence in the record (see Farrington v New York City Tr.Auth., 33 AD3d 332 [2006]). Accordingly, in response to the plaintiffs' prima facieshowing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to raise a triableissue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.