ARNOLD v. SHEPITKA (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sandra B. Sciortino, J.), dated July 6, 2023.  The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when a vehicle that he was operating in Orange County collided with a vehicle that the defendant was operating.  The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence, contending that the defendant's negligent operation of his vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident.  In an order dated July 6, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” (Garutti v. Kim Co. Refrig. Corp., 222 A.D.3d 728, 728–729, 201 N.Y.S.3d 210 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Flores v. Rubenstein, 175 A.D.3d 1490, 1490–1491, 109 N.Y.S.3d 390).  To be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff does not have the burden of establishing the absence of his or her own comparative negligence (see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 324–325, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366).  However, the issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability where, as here, the plaintiff also seeks dismissal of an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence (see Corredor v. Alnamer, 228 A.D.3d 726, 213 N.Y.S.3d 161;  Ramirez v. Wangdu, 195 A.D.3d 646, 144 N.Y.S.3d 630).

Here, the plaintiff's submissions in support of his motion contained conflicting accounts as to how the collision occurred and failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant proximately caused the accident and whether the plaintiff was free from comparative negligence (see Corredor v. Alnamer, 228 A.D.3d 726, 213 N.Y.S.3d 161;  Garutti v. Kim Co. Refrig. Corp., 222 A.D.3d at 729, 201 N.Y.S.3d 210;  Ramirez v. Wangdu, 195 A.D.3d at 647, 144 N.Y.S.3d 630).  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the credibility of the defendant's assertion, made at his deposition, that he did not make the statement attributed to him in a certified police accident report is for a jury to determine (see Smith–Joyner v. Barahona, 227 A.D.3d 924, 927, 211 N.Y.S.3d 495;  Imamkhodjaev v. Kartvelishvili, 44 A.D.3d 619, 621, 843 N.Y.S.2d 160).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).

IANNACCI, J.P., MALTESE, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.