LOPEZ v. RODRIGUEZ (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James G. Clynes, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2024, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment because triable issues of fact exist as to how the collision occurred given the parties’ conflicting accounts (see Rawls v. Simon, 157 A.D.3d 418, 418, 66 N.Y.S.3d 126 [1st Dept. 2018];  Gyamfi v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp., 146 A.D.3d 612, 612, 44 N.Y.S.3d 759 [1st Dept. 2017]).  In his affirmation, defendant, who was driving his car, stated that he was at a full stop at the red traffic light signal.  When the light turned green, he entered the intersection.  Defendant maintains that it was only when he was in the middle of the intersection that he first saw plaintiff's motorcycle coming towards the driver's side of his car.  By contrast, plaintiff testified and affirmed in his opposing papers that as he reached the crosswalk for the intersection his traffic light signal turned yellow and remained yellow as he entered the intersection.  Given these differing accounts about the occurrence of the accident, defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see G.G.N. v. Ramos, 171 A.D.3d 619, 621, 98 N.Y.S.3d 183 [1st Dept. 2019]).  Indeed, such conflicting versions of how the collision occurred raises credibility issues, “and it is not the court's function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” (Rawls, 157 A.D.3d at 419, 66 N.Y.S.3d 126 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Notwithstanding defendant's assertions to the contrary, neither the video footage of the collision nor the still images taken from that video resolves the parties’ conflicting accounts.  For example, the traffic light signal cannot be seen in either the video or the still images.  Similarly, the pedestrian “walk” signal display is virtually indiscernible.  Accordingly, given their inconclusive nature, these materials failed to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact (see Miranda–Lopez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 177 A.D.3d 431, 431–432, 110 N.Y.S.3d 303 [1st Dept. 2019]).

Nor was the police accident report sufficient to eliminate all issues of fact as to defendant's negligence.  Far from demonstrating that plaintiff's version of events is demonstrably false, the report merely confirms that the question of how the accident occurred is a “classic dispute of fact” that should be left to a jury (see Ramos v. Rojas, 37 A.D.3d 291, 292, 830 N.Y.S.2d 109 [1st Dept. 2007];  cf.  Carthen v. Sherman, 169 A.D.3d 416, 417, 94 N.Y.S.3d 34 [1st Dept. 2019] [reversing denial of summary judgment dismissing complaint where plaintiff offered “internally contradictory deposition testimony” that also “contradict[ed] every other piece of evidence in the record,” including photographs of the damaged vehicle and a police report]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.