Plaintiff Harold Ostrowsky appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered September 19, 2003, upon a jury verdict, in defendants' favor dismissing the action, and from an order (same court and Judge), entered on or about October 24, 2003, which denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment (Raul Cruz, J.), entered September 19, 2003, reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to abide the event. Appeal from order (same Judge), entered on or about October 24, 2003, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the flat-bed truck operated by defendant Gritz struck the rear of a tractor-trailer in which plaintiff was a passenger. The jury verdict finding that defendant was not negligent does not comport with the weight of the trial evidence (see Danza v Longieliere, 256 AD2d 434 [1998]) and could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the [*2]evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). Defendant's own testimony indicated that, immediately before the accident, he was driving his truck around a blind curve on a highway exit ramp, no more than two car lengths behind plaintiff's tractor-trailer, and that when he allegedly saw smoke coming from the tires of the tractor-trailer, he did not have enough time or distance between the vehicles to prevent the collision. A rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the rear-ending driver (see De La Cruz v Ock Wee Leong, 16 AD3d 199 [2005]), entitling the injured occupant(s) of the front vehicle to judgment on liability unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a non-negligent reason for the collision (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 [1999]). Defendant's testimony that the driver of the tractor-trailer had stopped suddenly is insufficient to satisfy the duty of explanation (see Figueroa v Luna, 281 AD2d 204, 206 [2001]). While a reasonable fact finder ultimately could determine that the sole causative factor in propelling plaintiff forward in the truck cabin was the tractor-trailer's sudden stop prior to the collision, a finding that defendant Gritz was not negligent in failing to stop in time to avoid the collision cannot be sustained on this record (see Agramonte v City of New York, 288 AD2d 75 [2001]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: May 18, 2006