Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Bruno Roessler satisfied his prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). "A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision" ( Rainford v. Sung S. Han, 18 AD3d 638, 639; see David v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 19 AD3d 639; Leal v. Wolff, 224 AD2d 392). In the instant case, the vehicle operated by Roessler was stopped or, at a minimum, very close to a complete stop, when it was hit in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant Salvatore Misuraca. Misuraca's statement that Roessler's stop "was pretty sudden from what I saw" was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Rainford v. Sung S. Han, supra; McGregor v. Manzo, 295 AD2d 487). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly granted Roessler's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.