Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.).
In response to plaintiffs' prima facie showing that defendants were liable as the result of a rear-end automobile collision which occurred after both vehicles had first stopped at a stop sign at a parkway entrance ramp and then proceeded several feet ( see, Abramowicz v Roberto, 220 A.D.2d 374), defendants failed to provide an adequate nonnegligent explanation of their conduct. Defendant driver's failure to anticipate and react to the slow and cautious movement of plaintiff's vehicle, which rendered defendant unable to move his vehicle into the parkway lane as planned, precludes application of the emergency doctrine ( see, Mead v Marino, 205 A.D.2d 669; cf., Cohen v Masten, 203 A.D.2d 774, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 809; DeCosmo v Hulse, 204 A.D.2d 953; Suitor v Boivin, 219 A.D.2d 799).
We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.