WALKER v. EDWARDS (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), dated November 2, 2022.  The order granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses alleging culpable conduct and comparative negligence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when his electric bicycle was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant Federal Express Corporation and operated by the defendant Lester S. Edwards on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn.  The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses alleging culpable conduct and comparative negligence.  In an order dated November 2, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion.  The defendants appeal.

“Crossing a double yellow line into the opposing lane of traffic, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126(a), constitutes negligence as a matter of law, unless justified by an emergency situation not of the driver's own making” (Foster v. Sanchez, 17 A.D.3d 312, 313, 792 N.Y.S.2d 579;  see Browne v. Logan Bus Co., Inc., 156 A.D.3d 856, 857, 65 N.Y.S.3d 780).  Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting his affidavit, wherein he averred that he was riding his electric bicycle south on Ocean Avenue when the defendants’ vehicle, which had been traveling north on Ocean Avenue, crossed over the double yellow lines from the northbound lane into the southbound lane to make a U-turn and struck the plaintiff (see Burgess v. Little Wolf Cabinet Shop, Inc., 226 A.D.3d 957, 210 N.Y.S.3d 206;  Browne v. Logan Bus Co., Inc., 156 A.D.3d at 857, 65 N.Y.S.3d 780;  Snemyr v. Morales–Aparicio, 47 A.D.3d 702, 703, 850 N.Y.S.2d 489).  The plaintiff also established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses alleging culpable conduct and comparative negligence by demonstrating that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident (see Quintanilla v. Mark, 210 A.D.3d 713, 714, 177 N.Y.S.3d 687).

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Snemyr v. Morales–Aparicio, 47 A.D.3d at 704, 850 N.Y.S.2d 489).  Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff's motion was not premature.  “[W]hile a party is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery in advance of a summary judgment determination, [a] party contending that a summary judgment motion is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” (Skura v. Wojtlowski, 165 A.D.3d 1196, 1200, 87 N.Y.S.3d 100 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Quintanilla v. Mark, 210 A.D.3d at 714, 177 N.Y.S.3d 687).  Here, the defendants had personal knowledge of the relevant facts and failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses alleging culpable conduct and comparative negligence.

CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and VENTURA, JJ., concur.