Opinion
11-01-2016
Jose CASTANEDA, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. DO & CO NEW YORK CATERING, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Ogen & Sedaghati, P.C., New York (Eitan A. Ogen of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Susan B. Owens, White Plains (Susan B. Owens of counsel), for respondents.
Ogen & Sedaghati, P.C., New York (Eitan A. Ogen of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Susan B. Owens, White Plains (Susan B. Owens of counsel), for respondents.
SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered March 24, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with leave to renew upon completion of all parties' depositions, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiffs established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that they were injured when defendants' vehicle hit their stopped vehicle from behind as they waited at a red light (see Rosario v. Vasquez, 93 A.D.3d 509, 940 N.Y.S.2d 249 [1st Dept.2012] ). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants did not provide a nonnegligent explanation for why their vehicle rear-ended plaintiffs' vehicle, and they did not demonstrate why depositions of plaintiffs are needed, since the information as to why their car rear-ended plaintiffs' vehicle reasonably rests within defendants' own knowledge (see Avant v. Cepin Livery Corp., 74 A.D.3d 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept.2010] ).