Majority
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff established, as a matter of law, that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1112 (a). However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was free from comparative fault, as her affidavit did not show that she looked for approaching traffic before she began to cross the street (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Roman v A1 Limousine, Inc., 76 AD3d 552 , 552 [2010]; Yuen Lum v Wallace, 70 AD3d 1013 , 1014 [2010]; see also Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736 , 737 [1993]; Rosenblatt v Venizelos, 49 AD3d 519 , 520 [2008]). Since the plaintiff failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she was free from comparative fault, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Mastro, A.PJ., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Lum v. Wallace 70 AD3d 1013 at 1014 p. 602
- Rosenblatt v. Venizelos 49 AD3d 519 at 520 p. 602
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 p. 602