LUGO v. MERCURIO (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), dated February 13, 2024.  The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained when the vehicle he was operating collided with the vehicle the defendant was operating at or near an intersection.  The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the plaintiff was solely at fault in the happening of the accident.  In an order dated February 13, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” (Boulos v. Lerner–Harrington, 124 A.D.3d 709, 709, 2 N.Y.S.3d 526).  There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (see Trinidad v. Llapa, 231 A.D.3d 1183, 219 N.Y.S.3d 175;  Cox v. Nunez, 23 A.D.3d 427, 805 N.Y.S.2d 604), and a “motion for summary judgment should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” (Baab v. HP, Inc., 211 A.D.3d 783, 783, 181 N.Y.S.3d 124 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see St. Fort Colin v. Perry, 231 A.D.3d 989, 991, 220 N.Y.S.3d 814;  Schmitz v. Pinto, 220 A.D.3d 681, 681–682, 197 N.Y.S.3d 326).

Here, in support of his motion, the defendant submitted transcripts of the parties’ deposition testimony, which provided conflicting evidence as to how the accident occurred and raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was free from fault in the happening of the accident (see generally St. Fort Colin v. Perry, 231 A.D.3d at 991, 220 N.Y.S.3d 814;  Schmitz v. Pinto, 220 A.D.3d at 681–682, 197 N.Y.S.3d 326;  Baab v. HP, Inc., 211 A.D.3d 783, 181 N.Y.S.3d 124).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff'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).

MILLER, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.