DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal by Hans Rudolph, the plaintiff in Action No. 2, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[c], [e]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Joseph Longhito, Robert Bartoli, and Lee A. Klein, without costs or disbursements.
In support of her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in Actions Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant Lee A. Klein submitted medical evidence which established that the plaintiffs in those actions did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The medical evidence which the plaintiffs in those actions submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion failed to raise any triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212[b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaints in Actions Nos. 1 and 3.
The Supreme Court also properly dismissed Klein's cross claim against the codefendant Joseph Longhito in Action No. 2. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on him or her to explain how the accident occurred (see, Brant v. Senatobia Operating Corp., 269 A.D.2d 483 [2d Dept., Feb. 22, 2000]; Levine v. Taylor, 268 A.D.2d 566 [2d Dept., Jan. 31, 2000]; Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392). Contrary to Klein's contention, her deposition testimony that the Longhito vehicle suddenly stopped short in traffic was insufficient to rebut the presumption that she was negligent (see, Brant v. Senatobia Operating Corp., supra; Levine v. Taylor, supra; Baron v. Murray, 268 A.D.2d 495 [2d Dept., Jan. 24, 2000]).