Plaintiff was a passenger in the backseat of defendant Cepin Livery Corp.'s vehicle when that vehicle struck the back of appellants' vehicle, which was stopped at a red light, before hitting another car; plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Under the circumstances, summary judgment in favor of appellants is warranted because when such a rear-end collision occurs, the owner and operator of the front vehicle are entitled to summary judgment on liability unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see Mullen v Rigor, 8 AD3d 104; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271). Here, the opposition failed to provide such a nonnegligent explanation [ see Grimes-Carrion v Carroll, 13 AD3d 125).
Contrary to the finding of the motion court, depositions are not needed since the opponents of the motion had personal knowledge of the facts ( cf. CPLR 3212 [f]), and failed to meet their obligation of laying bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( Morgan v New York Tel., 220 AD2d 728).