Pion v Jie Jang

[*1] Pion v Jie Jang 2004 NY Slip Op 51267(U) Decided on October 25, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 25, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: October 25, 2004 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
2003-1657 K C

JESSICA PION and JANICE PION, Respondents,

against

JIE JANG, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (M. Solomon, J), entered on August 20, 2003, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle (see Flood v New York City Tr. Authority, 6 AD3d 655 [2004]; Chepel v Meyers, 306 AD2d 235 [2003]; Purcell v Axelsen, 286 AD2d 379 [2002]; Colonna v Suarez, 278 AD2d 355 [2001]; Maschka v Newman, 262 AD2d 615 [2000]). It is uncontroverted on the record that the lead vehicle operated by plaintiff Jessica Pion was stopped or stopping at the time it was rear-ended by defendant's vehicle. However, the testimony of the parties at the examinations before trial was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident, including whether the driver of the lead vehicle contributed to the accident by making a sudden stop (see Chepel v Meyers, 306 AD2d 235, supra; Drake v Drakoulis, 304 AD2d 522 [2003]; Purcell v Axelsen 286 AD2d 379, supra; Maschka v Newman, 262 AD2d 615, supra).
Decision Date: October 25, 2004