Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Niyazov v Bradford, 13 A.D.3d 501 ; Russ v Investech Sec., 6 A.D.3d 602 ; Barile v Lazzarini, 222 A.D.2d 635
The plaintiffs met their burden by submitting evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Emil Norsic & Son, Inc. v L.P. Transp., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 368 ; Neidereger v Misuraca, 27 A.D.3d 537 ; David v New York City Bd. of Educ., 19 A.D.3d 639 ; Rainford v Sung S. Han, 18 A.D.3d 638 ). In opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact. The defendants' assertion that the injured plaintiff made a sudden stop and failed to give proper signals, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163, contradicted the injured plaintiff's contention and, if believed, provided a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision (see Simpson v Eastman, 300 A.D.2d 647 ; Maschka v Newman, 262 A.D.2d 615 ; Artis v Jamaica Buses, 262 A.D.2d 511 ).