ORTIZ v. CALAVERA (2006)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated September 3, 2004, as granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.   The plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the defendant was negligent in backing his tractor-trailer into the plaintiff pedestrian without taking adequate precautions (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211[a];  Garcia v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 A.D.3d 339, 781 N.Y.S.2d 93;  Pressner v. Serrano, 260 A.D.2d 458, 688 N.Y.S.2d 227;  Weather v. North Am. Recycling Corp., 255 A.D.2d 666, 679 N.Y.S.2d 213).   In opposition to the cross motion, the defendant failed to offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact.   His assertion that issues were raised as to the plaintiff's comparative negligence was speculative and unsupported by the record (see Garcia v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., supra;  Flanel v. Maglione Italian Ices, 266 A.D.2d 505, 698 N.Y.S.2d 711;  Weather v. North Am. Recycling Corp., supra ).