Case Name: Romel Espinoza, Appellant, v. Coco-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-10-01
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 640
Docket Number: 
Parties: Romel Espinoza, Appellant, v Coco-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Romel Espinoza, Appellant, v Coco-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents.
[993 NYS2d 721]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 13, 2014, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; Gorenkoff v Nagar, 120 AD3d 470 [2014]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]), since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (see Adobea v Junel, 114 AD3d 818 [2014]; Allen v Echols, 88 AD3d 926 [2011]).
Here, the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his affidavit, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant driver was negligent in suddenly pulling his vehicle out of a parking spot, without warning, into a lane of moving traffic, striking the plaintiffs vehicle, and that the defendant driver's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Calandra v Dishotsky, 244 AD2d 376 [1997]; see also Smalls v Adams, 118 AD3d 693 [2014]; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593 [2004]). In opposition, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant driver, which provided a conflicting version of the facts surrounding the accident. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault (see generally Incle v Byrne-Lowell, 115 AD3d 709 [2014]; Singh v Thomas, 113 AD3d 748 [2014]; Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]; Anyanwu v Johnson, 276 AD2d 572 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.