Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment in this chain-reaction automobile accident case. The appellants claim that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because their vehicle was hit from behind while lawfully stopped in traffic waiting to exit the Verrazano Bridge ( see, Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392; Collazo v Lewis, 210 A.D.2d 451; Smith v. Cafiero, 203 A.D.2d 355). However, the appellants failed to carry their evidentiary burden ( see, Lehmann v. Sheaves, 231 A.D.2d 687). Indeed, there was evidence suggesting that the appellants had been following the car driven by the defendant John Stillitano too closely and at too great a speed, and that the appellants and Stillitano stopped abruptly. Moreover, there were multiple impacts, and Stillitano's deposition testimony gives rise to an inference that the appellants' vehicle may have hit his car first, before being hit by defendant Alfreda Johnson's car, in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Accordingly, the appellants did not demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Omrami v. Socrates, 227 A.D.2d 459; Cofrancesco v. Murino, 225 A.D.2d 648; Acampora v. Davis, 203 A.D.2d 399).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.