SHAPIRO v. MUNOZ (2006)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated May 10, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendant Raul Vivas Munoz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The defendant Raul Vivas Munoz demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff, while riding a bicycle, violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1) by making a left turn against a red traffic light into the path of a vehicle operated by Munoz, which was legally proceeding through a green traffic light (see Moreback v. Mesquita, 17 A.D.3d 420, 793 N.Y.S.2d 148;  Lestingi v. Holland, 297 A.D.2d 627, 747 N.Y.S.2d 522;  Cenovski v. Lee, 266 A.D.2d 424, 698 N.Y.S.2d 868).   In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Munoz was in any way at fault in the happening of the accident or whether he could have done anything to avoid the collision (see Lestingi v. Holland, supra;  Casanova v. New York City Tr. Auth., 279 A.D.2d 495, 719 N.Y.S.2d 125;  Puccio v. Caputo, 272 A.D.2d 387, 707 N.Y.S.2d 478;  Schneider v. American Diabetes Assn., 253 A.D.2d 807, 677 N.Y.S.2d 627).   Although the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in opposition to Munoz's motion, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the affidavit, which was inconsistent with the plaintiff's deposition testimony, was designed to raise feigned factual issues in an effort to avoid the consequences of his earlier admissions (see Israel v. Fairharbor Owners, Inc., 20 A.D.3d 392, 798 N.Y.S.2d 139;  Stancil v. Supermarkets Gen., 16 A.D.3d 402, 790 N.Y.S.2d 552;  Semple v. Sterling Estates, 300 A.D.2d 297, 751 N.Y.S.2d 306;  Appell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 292 A.D.2d 407, 739 N.Y.S.2d 182).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.