| Pollard v Independent Beauty & Barber Supply Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02659 [94 AD3d 845] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lawrence Pollard, Respondent, v Independent Beauty &Barber Supply Co. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Weiss & Rosenbloom, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Andrea Krugman Tessler and Barry D. Weiss ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much ofan order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated March 4, 2011, as granted theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.
A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case ofnegligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operatorto rebut the inference 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, 1114 [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]; Lampkin vChan, 68 AD3d 727 [2009]). Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlementto judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting evidence that thedefendants' vehicle struck his vehicle in the rear as it was stopped at a red light. However, inopposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's negligencecaused or contributed to the accident through the affidavit of the defendant Jerome Ford, thedriver of the defendants' vehicle. Ford averred that the plaintiff's vehicle began to proceed whenthe light turned green, but then stopped suddenly and without warning in the intersection despitethe fact that it was clear of traffic and pedestrians (see Vargas v Luxury Family Corp., 77 AD3d 820, 821 [2010]; Delayhaye v Caledonia Limo & Car Serv.,Inc., 49 AD3d 588 [2008]; Richards v Manley Driving School, Inc., 27 AD3d 443, 444 [2006];Taveras v Amir, 24 AD3d 655[2005]; Brodie v Global AssetRecovery, Inc., 12 AD3d 390 [2004]; Moran v Singh, 10 AD3d 707, 708 [2004]). Contrary to theplaintiff's assertions, the statements contained in Ford's affidavit were not an attempt to create afeigned issue of fact (see Jahangir vLogan Bus Co., Inc., 89 AD3d 1064 [2011]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.