Savarese v Cerrachio
2010 NY Slip Op 09118 [79 AD3d 725]
December 7, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011


Michael Savarese, Appellant,
v
Ronald Cerrachio,Respondent.

[*1]S. David Olarsch, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Shawn P. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), entered May 4, 2010, which denied his motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability is granted.

A "rear-end collision with a lawfully stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence withrespect to the operator of the moving vehicle and requires the operator of the moving vehicle to providea non-negligent explanation for the collision" (Franklin v 2 Guys From Long Pond, Inc., 50 AD3d 846, 847 [2008];see Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10NY3d 906 [2008]; Ramirez vKonstanzer, 61 AD3d 837 [2009]). Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlementto judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the defendant struck the back of his vehicle afterit had come to a lawful stop at a red light. The defendant's deposition testimony that the accidentoccurred after the light had turned green and the plaintiff's vehicle began to slowly move forward didnot raise a triable issue of fact as to a non-negligent explanation for the happening of the accident(see Ramirez v Konstanzer, 61 AD3d at 837; Lundy v Llatin, 51 AD3d 877 [2008]; Rainford v Sung S. Han, 18 AD3d 638[2005]). Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability (seegenerally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The defendant's contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because he failedto submit evidence in admissible form in support of the motion is without merit (see Mejia v Era Realty Co., 69 AD3d816 [2010]; Mazzarelli v 54 Plus RealtyCorp., 54 AD3d 1008 [2008]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.