MIRZA v. TRIBECA AUTOMOTIVE INC (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shawndya L. Simpson, J.), entered September 4, 2019, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this rear-end collision case, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to an adequate, nonnegligent explanation for the accident (Urena v. GVC Ltd., 160 A.D.3d 467, 75 N.Y.S.3d 7 [1st Dept. 2018]).  Defendant driver Lajara–Lajara had the obligation to maintain a safe distance between himself and the cars in front of him so as to avoid collisions with stopped vehicles (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a];  LaMasa v. Bachman, 56 A.D.3d 340, 869 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept. 2008]).  While defendants contended that plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop in heavy traffic on the Cross Bronx Expressway, and that defendant driver could not see that traffic had stopped around a bend in the road, that alone does constitute a non-negligent explanation (see Morales v. Consolidated Bus Tr., Inc., 167 A.D.3d 457, 458, 89 N.Y.S.3d 163 [1st Dept. 2018];  Bajrami v. Twinkle Cab Corp., 147 A.D.3d 649, 46 N.Y.S.3d 879 [1st Dept. 2017]).  The circumstances did not constitute a sudden, unanticipated emergency (see Renteria v. Simakov, 109 A.D.3d 749, 750, 972 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept. 2013]).

Additionally, the motion for summary judgment was not premature.  Defendants did not identify any evidence in plaintiff's possession that would support a non negligent cause for the rear-end collision.  Defendant driver did not dispute that his truck rear-ended plaintiff's vehicle after plaintiff came to a stop in heavy traffic, and defendants were in possession of all of relevant information as to why he did so (see Rodriguez v. Garcia, 154 A.D.3d 581, 581, 62 N.Y.S.3d 267 [1st Dept. 2017];  Castaneda v. DO & CO N.Y. Catering, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 407, 407, 39 N.Y.S.3d 857 [1st Dept. 2016]).  Defendants' speculation that discovery might reveal what driving maneuvers plaintiff performed and the condition of plaintiff's car is insufficient to deny the motion for partial summary judgment (Tavarez v. Herrasme, 140 A.D.3d 453, 454, 31 N.Y.S.3d 871 [1st Dept. 2016]).