| Markesinis v Jaquez |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03641 [106 AD3d 961] |
| May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Nicholas Markesinis, Appellant, v Roni J. Jaquezet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Harris, King & Fodera (Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury, N.Y. [Matthew W.Naparty and David A. Beatty], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated April 25, 2012, whichdenied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligencewith respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on that operator torebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for thecollision (see Tutrani v Countyof Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906 [2008]; Pollard v Independent Beauty & Barber Supply Co., 94 AD3d845 [2012]; Balducci vVelasquez, 92 AD3d 626 [2012]; Perez v Roberts, 91 AD3d 620 [2012]; Camarillo v Sandoval, 90AD3d 593 [2011]; Kastritsios v Marcello, 84 AD3d 1174 [2011]). Here, theplaintiff established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that his vehicle was fully stopped at a red traffic light when it was hit inthe rear by the defendants' vehicle (see Pollard v Independent Beauty & Barber Supply Co., 94AD3d 845 [2012]; Kastritsios v Marcello, 84 AD3d 1174 [2011]; Ballatore v HUB Truck RentalCorp., 83 AD3d 978 [2011]). In opposition, the defendants raised triable issuesof fact as to whether the plaintiff was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, andwhether his alleged negligence caused or contributed to the accident, through theaffidavit of the defendant driver Roni J. Jaquez. Jaquez averred that the plaintiff's vehicleabruptly changed lanes, directly in front of his vehicle, and then came to a sudden stop.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability (see Scheker v Brown, 85 AD3d 1007 [2011]; Ortiz v Hub Truck RentalCorp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]; Reitz v Seagate Trucking, Inc., 71 AD3d 975 [2010]; Abbott v Picture Cars E., Inc.,78 AD3d 869 [2010]; Oguzturk v General Elec. Co., 65 AD3d 1110 [2009]; Guerra v Cantos, 38 AD3d714 [2007]; Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha, 280 AD2d 534 [2001]). Skelos,J.P., Hall, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.