Rodriguez v. GarciaRodriguez v. Garcia
Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit averring that while she was stopped in traffic, the vehicle operated by defendant Garcia struck her vehicle from behind. In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as they did not provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Castaneda v DO&CO N.Y. Catering, Inc., 144 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2016]; Cruz v Lise, 123 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2014]; Dicturel v Dukureh, 71 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2010]). Plaintiff‘s motion was not premature due to the lack of plaintiff‘s deposition, because the information as to why defendants’ car struck the rear end of plaintiff‘s car reasonably rests within defendant driver‘s own knowledge (see Castaneda at 407; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 272 [1st Dept 1999]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gische and Moulton, JJ.