TORRES v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patria Frias–Colón, J.), dated November 6, 2023.  The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In November 2018, a vehicle operated by the plaintiff was struck in the rear by a bus operated by the defendant Rodney Hamlin and owned by the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA).  The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants.  In January 2023, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.  The defendants opposed the motion.  In an order dated November 6, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“ ‘A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant[s] breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant[s’] negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries' ” (Quinones v. Grace Indus., LLC, 219 A.D.3d 765, 765, 194 N.Y.S.3d 314, quoting Tsyganash v. Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc., 163 A.D.3d 1033, 1033–1034, 83 N.Y.S.3d 74;  see Sanders v. Sangemino, 185 A.D.3d 617, 618, 124 N.Y.S.3d 820).  “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” (Clements v. Giatas, 178 A.D.3d 894, 894, 112 N.Y.S.3d 539;  see Balanta v. Guo Lin Wu, 220 A.D.3d 720, 721, 197 N.Y.S.3d 545).  “ ‘A nonnegligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause’ ” (Grant v. Carrasco, 165 A.D.3d 631, 632, 84 N.Y.S.3d 235, quoting Ortiz v. Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 A.D.3d 725, 726, 918 N.Y.S.2d 156;  see Orcel v. Haber, 140 A.D.3d 937, 938, 33 N.Y.S.3d 429).

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.  In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony and an incident report of the NYCTA, as well as a transcript of Hamlin's deposition testimony.  These submissions presented a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had a nonnegligent explanation for striking the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle (see Moluh v. Vord, 143 A.D.3d 680, 681, 39 N.Y.S.3d 187;  Hudgins–Russell v. Sharma, 116 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 983 N.Y.S.2d 879).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.