Rosario v. VasquezRosario v. Vasquez
Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to liability by submitting his affidavit stating that, while his vehicle was stopped at a red light, it was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by defendant Guzman-Sosa and owned by defendant Vasquez (Avant v Cepin Livery Corp., 74 AD3d 533, 534 [2010]).
In opposition, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (Avant, 74 AD3d at 534; cf. Ebanks v Triboro Coach Corp., 304 AD2d 406 [2003]). The uncertified police accident report submitted by defendants constitutes hearsay and, in any event, does not support Guzman-Sosa‘s account of the accident (see Rivera v GT Acquisition 1 Corp., 72 AD3d 525, 526 [2010]).
Contrary to the motion court‘s finding, depositions are not needed, since Guzman-Sosa had personal knowledge of the facts (see Avant, 74 AD3d at 534). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.