| Sayyed v Murray |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05563 [109 AD3d 464] |
| August 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mubashir A. Sayyed et al., Appellants, v Padraic J.Murray, Respondent. |
—[*1] Keane Mathless Bernheimer, PLLC, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Thomas J. Keane of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), dated October 30, 2012,which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motionfor summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
On March 14, 2011, the injured plaintiff, Mubashir A. Sayyed, the owner andoperator of a 2007 Lincoln Town Car, was stopped in the left lane on the KosciuszkoBridge when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a 2005 Chevy Cobalt owned andoperated by the defendant, Padraic J. Murray. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suingderivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. After the defendant wasdeposed, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. TheSupreme Court denied the motion.
When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, heor she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under theprevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle (see Strickland v Tirino, 99AD3d 888, 889 [2012]; Scheker v Brown, 85 AD3d 1007 [2011]). Thus, a rear-endcollision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to theoperator of the rearmost vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference ofnegligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Abbott v Picture Cars E.,Inc., 78 AD3d 869 [2010]; Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576 [2004]). The operator of themoving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplainedrear-end collision because he or she is in the best position to explain whether thecollision was due to, inter alia, a mechanical failure, an unavoidable skidding on a wetpavement, or some other reasonable cause (see Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392, 393[1996]).
Here, the plaintiffs satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlementto judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, as it is undisputed that the injuredplaintiff's vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle(see Briceno v Milbry, [*2]16 AD3d 448 [2005]).In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the defendantalleges that the injured plaintiff's vehicle stopped short in an attempt to avoid hitting thevehicle immediately preceding it, he admitted at his deposition that the injured plaintiff'svehicle was completely stopped when he first saw it, and that his vehicle struck theinjured plaintiff's vehicle in the rear three or four seconds later. Under thesecircumstances, the allegation that the injured plaintiff's vehicle stopped short wasinsufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligentexplanation for the collision (see De La Cruz v Ock Wee Leong, 16 AD3d 199, 200[2005]; Shamah v Richmond County Ambulance Serv., 279 AD2d 564, 565[2001]; Bournazos v Malfitano, 275 AD2d 437, 438 [2000]; Ner v Celis,245 AD2d 278, 279 [1997]). Further, the defendant's claim that he applied his brakes butwas unable to stop because his vehicle skidded on the metal grating on the roadway ofthe Kosciuszko Bridge was insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence arising fromthe rear-end collision because he failed to demonstrate that his skid on known roadconditions was unavoidable (seeGrimm v Bailey, 105 AD3d 703, 704 [2013]; Plummer v Nourddine, 82AD3d 1069, 1070 [2011]; Faul v Reilly, 29 AD3d 626 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.