ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
A rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and imposes a duty on him or her to explain how the accident occurred (see Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392; Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583) . If the operator of the offending vehicle cannot come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the driver of the lead vehicle may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law. A claim that the driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence (see Levine v. Taylor, 268 A.D.2d 566; Leal v. Wolff, supra; Silverman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833).
Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment, as the driver of the offending vehicle failed to come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.