| Plummer v Nourddine |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02368 [82 AD3d 1069] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Angie Plummer, Appellant, v Laayali Nourddine et al.,Defendants, and Marjit Singh et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel),for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia,J.), dated December 21, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants MarjitSingh and Biker Singh which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On November 15, 2008, the plaintiff was a passenger in a taxi owned by the defendantKroshka Taxi, Inc. (hereinafter the Kroshka taxi), and operated by the defendant LaayaliNourddine, when it struck the rear of another taxi owned by the defendant Biker Singh andoperated by the defendant Marjit Singh (hereafter together the respondents). The respondentsmoved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthem on the ground that they were not at fault in causing the subject accident.
A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain areasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding withthe other vehicle (see Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2d Dept 2011]; Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d672, 672 [2010]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; see generally Pawlukiewiczv Boisson, 275 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]; Maxwell v Lobenberg, 227 AD2d 598,598-599 [1996]). Accordingly, a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligenceon the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut theinference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10NY3d 906, 908 [2008]; Parra vHughes, 79 AD3d 1113 [2010]; DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 AD3d 489, 490[2010]; Volpe v Limoncelli, 74AD3d 795 [2010]; Staton v Ilic,69 AD3d 606 [2010]; Klopchin vMasri, 45 AD3d 737 [2007]).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the respondents relied upon, inter [*2]alia, the deposition testimony of Marjit Singh, who testified thatwhile he was stopped, waiting for a red light, his vehicle was struck in the rear by the Kroshkataxi. The plaintiff's deposition testimony, which was also relied upon by the respondents insupport of their motion, while inconsistent on the issue of whether the plaintiff actually saw therespondents' taxi stop prior to the collision, revealed that the Kroshka taxi was traveling on a wetroad, in heavy traffic, and was less than one car length behind the respondents' taxi when thesubject accident occurred. Through these submissions, the respondents established their primafacie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them.
In opposition, with respect to the operation of the Kroshka taxi, the plaintiff failed to providea nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision. In support of her opposition, the plaintiffrelied on her deposition testimony, as well as Nourddine's deposition testimony. Nourddine, athis deposition, testified that the respondents' taxi came to a sudden stop while traveling in heavytraffic on a wet roadway. The mere assertion that the respondents' taxi came to a sudden stopwhile traveling in heavy traffic was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Staton vIlic, 69 AD3d at 607). The inference of negligence also was not rebutted by the mereassertion that the Kroshka taxi was unable to stop on a wet roadway (see Volpe vLimoncelli, 74 AD3d at 796).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents' motionwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.Covello, J.P., Belen, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.