Leal v. Wolff

• Decision Date: 05 February 1996
• Citation: Leal v. Wolff, 638 N.Y.S.2d 110, 224 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Parties: Manuel LEAL, et al., Appellants, v. Karl A. WOLFF, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 110

638 N.Y.S.2d 110

224 A.D.2d 392

Manuel LEAL, et al., Appellants, v.Karl A. WOLFF, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 5, 1996.

Lawrence Rosman, New York City, for appellants.

James J. Thornton, Lake Success (Arthur B. Colligan, on the brief), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and FRIEDMANN, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Rutledge, J.), dated December 12, 1994, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion is granted.

This action arises from a two-car collision in which a car driven by the defendant, Karl A. Wolff, rear-ended a car driven by the plaintiffManuel Leal.In opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendant submitted his deposition testimony in which he testified that when he first saw Leal's car it was standing still only a few feet away and that he sounded his horn before the front, left side of his car lightly contacted the right, rear bumper of Leal's car.The defendant also testified that there was a distance of about five car-lengths in front of Leal's car and that Leal's car stopped short.The defendant further testified that, when he sounded his horn again, Leal's car moved and that, when he attempted to move to the right, Leal's car stopped short again.The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.We reverse.

A rear-end collision with a stopped automobile establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to explain how the accident occurred (see, Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583, 613 N.Y.S.2d 417;Starace v. Inner Circle Qonexions, 198 A.D.2d 493, 604 N.Y.S.2d 179;Edney v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 178 A.D.2d 398, 577 N.Y.S.2d 102;Benyarko v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 A.D.2d 572, 573, 556 N.Y.S.2d 761).The operator of the moving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision (see, Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 135, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324) because he or she is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on a wet pavement, or some other reasonable cause (see, Carter v. Castle...