Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. It is well settled that "[a] defense which only alleges that the defendant saw the plaintiff's vehicle [lawfully stopped], * * * that the brakes of the vehicle were applied, but the vehicle nevertheless slid or skidded into the plaintiff's vehicle due to the wet condition of the roadway * * * [is] insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence created by [an] unexplained rear-end collision" (Pincus v. Cohen, 198 A.D.2d 405, 406; see, Schmidt v. Edelman, 263 A.D.2d 502 [decided July 19, 1999]). "When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and to * * * compensate for any known adverse road conditions" (Young v. City of New York, 113 A.D.2d 833, 833-834).
PRESENT: PINE, J. P., LAWTON, WISNER, HURLBUTT AND CALLAHAN, JJ.