WACHTEL v. ALAN JOEL COMMUNICATIONS INC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond P. Fernandez, J.), entered October 31, 2024, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Defendant Joeandy N. Gonzalez testified at his deposition that, while operating a motor vehicle owned by defendant Alan Joel Communications, Inc. westbound on 171st Street in Manhattan, with a green traffic light in his favor, plaintiff, riding a bicycle northbound on Fort Washington Avenue, entered the intersection of the two streets against a red light and collided with defendants' vehicle.  A nonparty witness testified consistently with Gonzalez's version of events.  However, plaintiff testified that he had the green light, and that Gonzalez entered the intersection against the red light.

The parties' conflicting versions of how the accident occurred preclude summary judgment (see Jarrett v. Claro, 161 A.D.3d 639, 639, 77 N.Y.S.3d 384 [1st Dept. 2018];  Huerta–Saucedo v. City Bronx Leasing Inc., 147 A.D.3d 695, 695, 48 N.Y.S.3d 132 [1st Dept. 2017]).  It is well settled that a “court's role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination ․ Moreover, [i]t is not the court's function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” (De Paris v. Women's Natl. Republican Club, Inc., 148 A.D.3d 401, 403, 48 N.Y.S.3d 383 [1st Dept. 2017] [internal quotations marks and citations omitted]).  Plaintiff's version of events “is not incredible as a matter of law, and the different versions of the facts submitted by the parties raise[ ] credibility questions for a jury to resolve” (Duley v. S & N Rugova Props. LLC, 236 A.D.3d 544, 545, 228 N.Y.S.3d 556 [1st Dept. 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.