| Gibson v Levine |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03806 [95 AD3d 1071] |
| May 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alicia M. Gibson, Respondent, v Sean James Levine et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC, Carle Place, N.Y. (Jarad Lewis Siegel of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered September 7, 2011, which granted theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"[T]he operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to see what should be seen and to exercisereasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident" (Maragos v Sakurai, 92 AD3d 922,923 [2012]; see Balducci vVelasquez, 92 AD3d 626, 628 [2012]). " 'A driver of a vehicle approaching anothervehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed underthe prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle' " (Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82AD3d 725, 726 [2011], quoting Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672, 672 [2010]; seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Napolitano v Galletta, 85 AD3d 881, 882 [2011]). "Accordingly, arear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of therear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing anonnegligent explanation for the collision" (Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d at726; see Tutrani v County ofSuffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]; Klopchin v Masri, 45 AD3d 737, 737 [2007]; see also Abbott v Picture Cars E., Inc.,78 AD3d 869, 869 [2010]; DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 AD3d 489, 490[2010]; Tutrani v County ofSuffolk, 64 AD3d 53, 59 [2009]).
Here, in support of her motion, the plaintiff relied on, among other things, her depositiontestimony and that of the defendant Sean James Levine. The plaintiff testified that, while hervehicle was stopped at a stop sign, her vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by thedefendant Bellmore Radiator & Collision Co., Inc., and operated by Levine. Contrary to thedefendants' contentions, under the circumstances of this case, Levine's own deposition testimonyestablished that his inattentiveness in not looking in the direction he was driving when he beganto accelerate was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Giangrasso v Callahan, 87 AD3d 521, 522 [2011]). Thus, theplaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In [*2]opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgmenton the issue of liability. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.