Case ID: ad3d_125/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pusya Pinchevsky, Respondent, v William M. Lasher et al., Appellants.
    [999 NYS2d 895]-
   In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated May 28, 2014, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

As the plaintiff crossed Kings Highway at its intersection with Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn in the crosswalk, he was allegedly struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant William M. Lasher. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the personal injuries he allegedly sustained, and moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his motion (see Moreira v M.K. Travel & Transp., Inc., 106 AD3d 965 [2013]; Buchinger v Jazz Leasing Corp., 95 AD3d 1053 [2012]; Arazashvilli v Executive Fleet Mgt., Corp., 90 AD3d 682 [2011]; Qamar v Kanarek, 82 AD3d 860 [2011]), the defendants raised a triable issue of fact concerning how the accident occurred (see Qi Sheng Lu v World Wide Travel of Greater N.Y., Ltd., 111 AD3d 690 [2013]; Elefantis v P.O.P. Displays, Inc., 44 AD3d 608 [2007]; Mosheyev v Pilevsky, 283 AD2d 469 [2001]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.