| Rosenblatt v Venizelos |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01935 [49 AD3d 519] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vsevold Rosenblatt, Respondent, v Michael Venizelos etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Taller & Wizman, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Y. David Taller of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated February 23, 2007, which granted theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In 2005, the plaintiff was crossing a street when he was struck by a vehicle owned by thedefendant W. D. Rental, Inc., and driven by the defendant Michael Venizelos. The plaintiffestablished his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability bypresenting proof that he was walking within a crosswalk and that he had looked for approachingtraffic before he began to cross (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1151 [a]; Hoey v City of New York, 28 AD3d717 [2006]; Zabusky v Cochran, 234 AD2d 542 [1996]). In addition, the plaintiffsubmitted the police accident report, containing Venizelos' admission immediately following theaccident that his car had struck the plaintiff (see Abramov v Miral Corp., 24 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]; Jerminv APA Truck Leasing Co., 237 AD2d 255 [1997]).
The only admissible evidence which the defendants submitted in opposition to the motion,Venizelos' affidavit sworn to July 11, 2006, more than 15 months after the accident, failed toraise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit, in which Venizelos attested that the plaintiff walkedinto the side of his vehicle while talking on a cell phone, "heedless of traffic," was a belatedattempt by [*2]Venizelos to avoid the consequences of his earlieradmission by raising a feigned issue which was insufficient to defeat the motion (seeAbramov v Miral Corp., 24 AD3d at 398), particularly since he did not deny the accuracy ofthe police accident report (cf.Imamkhodjaev v Kartvelishvili, 44 AD3d 619, 620 [2007]). Moreover, " 'the defendants'purported need to conduct discovery did not warrant denial of the motion since they already hadpersonal knowledge of the relevant facts' " (Fenko v Mealing, 43 AD3d 856, 856 [2007], quoting Abramovv Miral Corp., 24 AD3d at 398). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.