Majority
— In an action to
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence establishing that the infant plaintiff entered a roadway from between two parked cars and immediately came into contact with the left side of the defendants’ moving vehicle, just above the front tire, and thus, the defendant-driver was unable to avoid contact with the infant plaintiff (see Rodriguez v Catalano, 96 AD3d 821 , 822 [2012]; Wolbe v Fishman, 29 AD3d 785 , 786 [2006]; Sae Hyun Kim v Mirisis, 286 AD2d 761 [2001]; Blazer v Tri-County Ambulette Serv., 285 AD2d 575 , 576 [2001]; Carrasco v Monteforte, 266 AD2d 330 , 331 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant-driver operated the vehicle in a negligent manner. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Mastro, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Montes Rodriguez v. Catalano 96 AD3d 821 at 822 p. 645
- Wolbe v. Fishman 29 AD3d 785 at 786 p. 645
- Sae Hyun Kim v. Mirisis 286 AD2d 761 p. 645