| Reid v Miguel |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06538 [43 AD3d 814] |
| September 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Keyante Reid et al., Appellants, v Soraya M. Miguel et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Richard T. Lau & Associates, Jericho, N.Y. (Gene W. Wiggins of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered August 2, 2006, which, upon anorder of the same court dated June 19, 2006 granting the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment, dismissed the complaint.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed anotice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5512 [a]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
By the uncontroverted testimony of the defendant Soraya M. Miguel (hereinafter thedefendant driver) and the infant plaintiff Keyante Reid (hereinafter the infant plaintiff) that theinfant plaintiff ran into the street, mid block, thereby resulting in the accident involving the infantplaintiff and the defendant driver's oncoming vehicle, the defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Ruocco v Mulhall,281 AD2d 406 [2001]; Garner v Fox, 265 AD2d 525 [1999]; Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1152 [a]; § 1151 [b]).[*2]
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidencesufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver exercised due care toavoid the subject accident (see Odumbov Perera, 27 AD3d 709 [2006]; Bongiovi v Hoffman, 18 AD3d 686, 687 [2005]; Breslin vRudden, 291 AD2d 471, 472 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]; Vehicleand Traffic Law § 1146). Therefore, the defendants were entitled to summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.