Opinion
Appeal No. 14910 Index No. 24120/19ECase No. 2021-01558
12-28-2021
Manuel Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. New York Cross et al., Defendants-Appellants. Yesenia Ruiz et al., Plaintiffs, Appeal No. 14910 No. 2021-01558
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (John Sandercock of counsel), for appellants.
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (John Sandercock of counsel), for appellants.
Before: Kern, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered March 25, 2021, which granted plaintiff Manuel Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants' counterclaim as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff established prima facie his entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an affidavit that he was stopped at a red light when defendants' vehicle struck the rear of his vehicle (see Santos v Booth, 126 A.D.3d 506, 506 [1st Dept 2015]; Johnson v Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 271 [1st Dept 1999]). In opposition, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident; defendant driver's affidavit that plaintiff's vehicle stopped suddenly upon approaching a yellow light does not explain why defendant driver failed to keep a safe distance between himself and the vehicle ahead of him (see Soto-Maroquin v Mellet, 63 A.D.3d 449, 450 [1st Dept 2009]; Chowdhury v Matos, 118 A.D.3d 488, 488 [1st Dept 2014]; Smyth v Murphy, 177 A.D.3d 492, 492 [1st Dept 2019]).
Since defendant driver had personal knowledge of the facts, additional discovery would not reveal any relevant information unknown to defendants (see CPLR 3212[f]; Avant v Cepin Livery Corp., 74 A.D.3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010]). The driver was in the best position to give a nonnegligent explanation for the accident.