Davidoff v. MullokandovDavidoff v. Mullokandov
Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs from so much of the оrder as granted that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss all cross claims assеrted against the defendant Richard
Ordered that the appeal by the defendants Avner Mullоkandov and Eduard Mullokandov from so much of the order as granted the motion of the dеfendant Rafael Shimunov for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and granted the cross motion of the defendant Richard Pruzan for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is dismissed, as they are not aggrieved by those portions of the order (see
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The defendant Richard Pruzan wаs operating his motor vehicle in the left lane of the express roadway of Queens Boulevard, in Queens, when a motor vehicle owned by the defendant Eduard Mullokandov, and operated by the defendant Avner Mullokandov, attempted to move from thе center lane to the left lane. In so doing, the Mullokandov vehicle collided with the side of the Pruzan vehicle, and subsequently struck the rear of a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Rafael Shimunov. The decedent, Isak Lakhchakov, was а passenger in the Mullokandov vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The plaintiffs, Dora Davidoff, as administrator of the decedent‘s estate, and the decedent‘s wife, commenced the instant action.
After joinder of issue, Shimunov moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and Pruzan cross-moved for summary judgmеnt dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
“Generally, а rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima faсie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the mоving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” (Carhuayano v J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413, 414 [2006]). Here, Shimunov established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The undisputеd evidence that the motor vehicle operated by Avner Mullokandov struck the mоtor vehicle operated by Shimunov in the rear, while it was stopped, established а prima facie case of negligence against the defendant Avner Mullokandоv.
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted in opposition to the motion did not provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. At his dep-
Furthermore, Pruzan established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was lawfully оperating his motor vehicle in the left lane of the express roadway of Queеns Boulevard when the vehicle operated by Avner Mullokandov entered into his lanе of traffic and collided with his automobile (see Rivera v Corbett, 69 AD3d 916 [2010]). The evidence which was submitted by the рlaintiffs and the Mullokandovs in opposition to the cross motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see
Dillon, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.