This is an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff, having brought his vehicle to a stop behind third-party defendants' truck, was rear-ended by a vehicle owned and operated by defendants and third-party plaintiffs, propelling plaintiff's automobile into the truck in front of him. Here, two vehicles were allegedly rear-ended. It is well settled that the driver of a motor vehicle must maintain a safe distance between his vehicle and the one in front of him, and that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver who strikes the vehicle in front ( Johnson v. Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271), unless the operator of the rear vehicle can come forth with an adequate, nonnegligent explanation for such accident ( Grimes-Carrion v. Carroll, 13 AD3d 125, 126). In this case, while plaintiff and defendants dispute whether defendants rear-ended plaintiff, there is no factual dispute regarding any negligence on the part of third-party defendants. There was no testimony that third-party defendants' vehicle had cut off plaintiff's automobile. Third-party defendants were able to rely on the presumption of negligence as to the vehicles behind their truck, plaintiff's evidentiary submissions were consistent with those of third-party defendants, and defendants failed to overcome the presumption of negligence.