| Kastritsios v Marcello |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04425 [84 AD3d 1174] |
| May 24, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Rosaria A. Kastritsios et al., Appellants, v GiovanniMarcello et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Stewart H. Friedman, Garden City, N.Y. (David A. Harrison of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated June 8, 2010, 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.
This action arises out of a two-vehicle collision involving a vehicle operated by the plaintiffRosaria A. Kastritsios which was struck in the rear by the vehicle operated by the defendantAngela Marcello and owned by the defendant Giovanni Marcello.
As a general rule, "a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on thepart of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference ofnegligence by providing a nonnegligent explanataion for the collision" (Plummer vNourddine, 82 AD3d 1069, 1069-1070 [2011]; see Ballatore v Hub Truck RentalCorp., 83 AD3d 978 [2011]; Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725, 726[2011]).
Here, the plaintiff driver submitted an affidavit in which she stated that her vehicle wasstopped at a red light at an intersection when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants'vehicle. This established the plaintiffs' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law onthe issue of liability.
In response, the affidavit of the defendant driver was insufficient to raise a triable issue offact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Campbell v Cityof Yonkers, 37 AD3d 750, 751 [2007]). The claim that the lead vehicle made a sudden stop,standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the followingvehicle (see Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d 767 [2010]; Mallen v Su, 67 AD3d 974,975 [2009]; Ramirez v Konstanzer, 61 AD3d 837 [2009]; Jumandeo v Franks, 56AD3d 614 [2008]; Arias v Rosario, 52 AD3d 551, 552-553 [2008]; Lundy vLlatin, 51 AD3d 877 [2008]; Johnston v Spoto, 47 AD3d 888, 889 [2008];Campbell v City of Yonkers, 37 AD3d at 751; Neidereger v Misuraca, 27 AD3d537 [2006]; [*2]Russ v Investech Sec., 6 AD3d 602, 602[2004]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.