Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219[a], of the papers considered in review of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Motion Sequence No.002)

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability is decided as follows upon oral argument placed on the record on September 7, 2022:

Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle incident that occurred when Defendant's vehicle struck the rear of Plaintiff's stopped vehicle.

In opposition, Defendant argues that a truck traveling ahead of him was blocking his view and suddenly swerved out of the lane. Defendant observed Plaintiff's vehicle with brake lights on after the truck cleared the lane ahead of him but was unable to avoid the incident.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) requires drivers to maintain safe distances between their vehicles and vehicles in front of them which requires drivers to "be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages" Johnson v. Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 (1st Dept 1999); VTL § 1129(a).

It is well-established that a rear-end collision creates a prima facie case of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Milsky v. Solanky, 8 AD3d 353 (2d Dept 2004); Macauley v. Elrac, Inc., 6 AD3d 584 (2d Dept 2004); Piltser v. Donna Lee Mgmt. Corp., 29 AD3d 973 (2d Dept 2006). In order to rebut this inference of negligence, the driver of that vehicle must provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. Id.; Harrington v. Kern, 52 AD3d 473 (2d Dept 2008). If the driver fails to provide an adequate non-negligent explanation, then the occupants of the rear-ended vehicle are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Piltser, 29 AD3d at 974; Harrington, 52 AD3d at 473.

Accordingly, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a presumption that the operator of the rear vehicle was negligent. In order to rebut this inference of negligence, the driver of the rear-ending vehicle must provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. See Ross v JFC Intl., Inc, 43 NYS3d 110 (2d Dept 2016); Tsang v New York City Tr. Auth., 125 AD3d 648 (2d Dept 2015).

The New York Pattern Jury Instructions (Third Edition), Volume 1A, PJI 2:83 "Motor Vehicle Accidents-Close Following" states in pertinent part:

"A motorist is required to comply with Section 1129 of the Vehicle Traffic Law, which provides: 'The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon the condition of the highway."

Stated otherwise, a motorist is required to drive at a sufficient distance behind the vehicle ahead so as to be able to avoid striking it if it comes to a stop. Case law is clear that any claim of sudden stop does not negate a defendant's violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1129 and does not constitute a non-negligent explanation for striking a vehicle in the rear. See Baron v Murray, 268 AD2d 495 (2d Dept 2000).

Moreover, neither conclusory allegations nor speculation are sufficient to rebut the inference of negligence created by a rear-end collision. See Ross v JFC Intl., Inc.; 185 AD3d 855 (2d Dept 2020) Macauley, 6 AD3d at 585; Levine v. Taylor, 268 AD2d 566 (2d Dept 2000). The allegation that a vehicle came to a sudden stop, in and of itself, is conclusory and insufficient to provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision. Ramos v Baig, 145 AD3d 696 (2d Dept 2016).

This Court finds that the changing of lanes by the truck ahead of the Defendant does not constitute a non-negligent explanation for Defendant striking the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the matter shall proceed to trial only on the issue of damages.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.