Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see Carman v Arthur J. Edwards Mason Contr. Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 813, 813-814; Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d 767, 768). Here, the defendant failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. Her assertion that the plaintiffs' vehicle came to a sudden stop in front of her vehicle is not supported by any evidence in the record ( see Farrington v New York City Tr. Auth., 33 AD3d 332). Accordingly, in response to the plaintiffs' prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.