Opinion
June 12, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Sullivan, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, the owner of a stopped vehicle struck by the plaintiff's vehicle, established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of liability against the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on its driver (see, Bando-Twomey v. Richheimer, 229 A.D.2d 554; Gladstone v. Hachuel, 225 A.D.2d 730; Leal v. Wolff 224 A.D.2d 392). The plaintiff, the driver of the moving vehicle, failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident. The plaintiff's deposition testimony established that he breached his duty to maintain a reasonably safe distance between his vehicle and the cars ahead of him and to be aware of traffic conditions (see, Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 270; Sass v. Ambu Trans, 238 A.D.2d 570; Bando-Twomey v. Richheimer, supra). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff's failure to observe traffic conditions and maintain a safe distance was the proximate cause of the accident ( see, DeAngelis v. Kirschner 171 A.D.2d 593; Somerall v. New York Tel. Co., 74 A.D.2d 302, revd on other grounds 52 N.Y.2d 157; Miller v. Sinram Marnis Oil Co., 8 Misc.2d 1041).