DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes the duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forth with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see, Power v. Hupart, 260 A.D.2d 458; Danza v. Longieliere, 256 A.D.2d 434; Mundo v. City of Yonkers, 249 A.D.2d 522).
In this case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the individual defendant failed to maintain a safe distance and whether the plaintiffs' vehicle stopped suddenly, thereby contributing to the accident (see, Migdol v. Striker, 215 A.D.2d 358; Tann v. Herlands, 224 A.D.2d 230; DeCosmo v. Hulse, 204 A.D.2d 953). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.