| Sokolowska v Song |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08978 [123 AD3d 1004] |
| December 24, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Krystyna Sokolowska et al., Appellants, v YangG. Song et al., Respondents. |
Robinson & Yablon, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine ofcounsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Curtis Vasile, P.C., Merrick, N.Y. (Michael J. Dorry of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered January 30, 2014,which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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 thatoperator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation forthe collision (see Xian HongPan v Buglione, 101 AD3d 706, 707 [2012]; Zdenek v Safety Consultants, Inc., 63 AD3d 918 [2009]; Ramirez v Konstanzer, 61AD3d 837 [2009]; Jumandeo v Franks, 56 AD3d 614 [2008]). A claim that thelead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumptionof negligence on the part of the following vehicle (see Kastritsios v Marcello, 84 AD3d 1174 [2011]; Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d767 [2010]; Mallen vSu, 67 AD3d 974 [2009]; Rainford v Sung S. Han, 18 AD3d 638 [2005]).
Here, the plaintiffs' submissions in support of their motion, which included excerptsof their conflicting deposition testimony and that of the defendant driver, Yang G. Song,demonstrated that their vehicle was struck in the rear, thus raising an inference of Song'snegligence. However, the plaintiffs' submissions also revealed triable issues of fact,including whether the defendants had a nonnegligent explanation for the collision.According to Song, the plaintiffs' vehicle came to an abrupt stop for no apparent reasonin the intersection where the collision occurred (see Fernandez v Babylon Mun. Solid Waste, 117 AD3d678 [2014]; Hudgins-Russell v Sharma, 116 AD3d 1004 [2014]; Romero v Al Haag & SonPlumbing & Heating, Inc., 113 AD3d 746, 747 [2014]; Hazzard v Burrowes, 95 AD3d829, 830 [2012]). Since the plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden, weneed not review the sufficiency of the defendants' opposition papers (see Winegrad vNew York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment on the issue of liability. Eng, P.J., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ.,concur.