Majority
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the conduct of the plaintiffs decedent in crossing the street at a location other than an intersection was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that he was free from negligence in failing to avoid a collision with the plaintiffs decedent (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]; Gecaj v DiFiglio, 303 AD2d 548 , 549 [2003]; Levy v Town Bus Corp., 293 AD2d 452 [2002]; Charles v Ball, 291 AD2d 367 [2002]; Ruocco v Mulhall, 281 AD2d 406 , 407 [2001]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146, 1152 [a]). Since the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 , 853 [1985]). Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 672
- Levy v. Town Bus Corp. 293 AD2d 452 p. 672
- Charles v. Ball 291 AD2d 367 p. 672
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 672