Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As a general rule, a rear-end collision with a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle unless the operator of the moving vehicle can come forth with an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident (see, Gambino v City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583; Parise v Meltzer, 204 A.D.2d 295; Aromando v City of New York, 202 A.D.2d 617).
In this case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant failed to keep a safe distance under the existing traffic conditions and whether the plaintiff suddenly stopped, thus contributing to the accident (see, DeCosmo v Hulse, 204 A.D.2d 953; Varsi v Stoll, 161 A.D.2d 590; Glick v Hittner Sons, 111 A.D.2d 150). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.