The following papers read on this motion by plaintiff for summary judgment on liability, pursuant to CPLR 3212. Papers Numbered Notice of Motion — Affirmation — Exhibits 1 Affirmation in Opposition — Exhibits 2 Reply Affirmation 3 Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that plaintiff’s motion is determined as follows: This is an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of a motor vehicle accident on November 17, 2018, at Linden Boulevard and Rockaway Avenue, County of Kings, City and State of New York. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (Brothers v. Bartling, 130 AD3d 554 [2d Dept 2015]; Le Grand v. Silberstein, 123 AD3d 773 [2d Dept 2014]). In the case at bar, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, on the issue of liability, by submitting a sworn affidavit that her vehicle, while stopped at a red traffic light, was struck in the rear by defendant’s vehicle. In opposition, defendant has failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Service v. McCoy, 131 AD3d 1038 [2d Dept 2015]). A driver is obligated to take “appropriate precautions, including maintaining a safe distance” (David v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 19 AD3d 639 [2d Dept 2005]; see Xian Hong Pan v. Buglione, 101 AD3d 706 [2d Dept 2012]). Defendant did not submit a sworn affidavit. The opinion of defendant’s counsel without any personal knowledge of the facts is insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence (Wesh v. Laidlaw, 59 AD3d 534 [2d Dept 2009]). Moreover, defendant’s submission of a certified police report containing his self-serving statement that defendant did not make contact with plaintiff’s vehicle, is inadmissible. The Second Department recently clarified the often vague standard as to admissibility of police reports and the statements therein (Yassin v. Blackman, __ NYS3d __, 2020 WL 5648349 (2d Dept Sept. 23, 2020). The Yassin Court noted that the use of a statement recorded in a police accident report involves two levels of hearsay, each of which must fit within a hearsay exception in order to render the statement contained within the report admissible. This twoprong standard is met when the police report is in and of itself admissible (i.e. certified) and the statement sought to be introduced satisfies one of the hearsay exceptions. In the case at bar, defendant’s statement does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, is granted. Dated: October 9, 2020
