DORAZIO v. (and another action). (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated October 11, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;  Huggins v. Figueroa, 305 A.D.2d 460, 762 N.Y.S.2d 404), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).   The plaintiff's version of the accident was not credible as a matter of law since it was refuted by the physical evidence at the accident scene and the characteristics of the location where the collision occurred (see Hardy v. Lojan Realty Corp., 303 A.D.2d 457, 755 N.Y.S.2d 901;  Rodriguez v. City of New York, 295 A.D.2d 590, 744 N.Y.S.2d 198;  Sullivan v. Pilevsky, 281 A.D.2d 410, 721 N.Y.S.2d 396), and it also was contrary to eyewitness accounts of the accident, the findings of police investigators, and the plaintiff's own admission following the collision.   Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.