Defendant Somma established that he was not negligent as a matter of law by producing admissible, uncontradicted evidence that his car sustained a sudden tire blowout, and it never came into contact with plaintiffs' or codefendant's vehicles ( see, Menekou v. Crean, 222 A.D.2d 418). Not only did plaintiffs fail to adduce any proof showing any negligence on Somma's part, but they also failed to offer any evidence which would warrant the conclusion that Somma's blowout played a causal role in plaintiffs' collision with codefendant's vehicle ( see, supra; Rosado v. Cavagnaro Sons Mach. Corp., 193 A.D.2d 476). Speculative theories of negligence offered in the affirmation of plaintiffs' counsel, including the claim that defendantrespondent's blowout could have been caused by inadequate tire maintenance, are without evidentiary value ( see, Rue v. Stokes, 191 A.D.2d 245).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.