| Martin v Cartledge |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00311 [102 AD3d 841] |
| January 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alestine Martin, Appellant, v Junco Cartledge etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Karen L. Lawrence, Tarrytown, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated January 17, 2012,which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"It is well settled that a 'rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a primafacie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle' " (Tutrani v County of Suffolk,10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008], quoting Stalikas v United Materials, 306 AD2d810, 810 [2003], affd 100 NY2d 626 [2003]), "thereby requiring that [driver] torebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for thecollision" (Giangrasso vCallahan, 87 AD3d 521, 522 [2011]).
Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by submitting evidence that her vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle ownedand operated by the defendants while she was stopped on an entrance ramp, waiting tomerge onto Route 9A in Peekskill. However, the defendants raised triable issues of factin opposition to the motion by submitting evidence that the collision actually occurredafter the plaintiff's vehicle had already completed the merge and then came to a suddenand unexplained stop in the middle of the roadway (see Foti v Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 AD3d 724, 725 [2008];Delayhaye v Caledonia Limo &Car Serv., Inc., 49 AD3d 588 [2008]; Niemiec v Jones, 237 AD2d 267[1997]). Given these sharply disputed factual and credibility issues regarding the mannerin which the accident occurred, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motionfor summary judgment on the issue of liability. Mastro, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.