| Pitt v Alpert |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04334 [51 AD3d 650] |
| May 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Damian Pitt, Appellant, v Cynthia Alpert,Respondent. |
—[*1] Epstein, Rayhill & Frankini, Woodbury, N.Y. (Michael Callari III of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered December 20, 2007, which denied hismotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
The plaintiff established that the defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of thesubject accident. The defendant's vehicle failed to stop at a red traffic light and proceeded intothe intersection directly into the plaintiff's lane (see Ramos v Triboro Coach Corp., 31 AD3d 625 [2006]; Iqbal v Petrov, 9 AD3d 416[2004]; Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627, 628 [2002]; Casanova v New York CityTr. Auth., 279 AD2d 495 [2001]; Packer v Mirasola, 256 AD2d 394 [1998];Diasparra v Smith, 253 AD2d 840 [1998]; see also Borges v Zukowski, 22 AD3d 439 [2005]). In opposition,the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was at fault in thehappening of the accident, or could have done anything to avoid it (see Ramos v Triboro Coach Corp., 31AD3d 625 [2006]; Iqbal v Petrov,9 AD3d 416 [2004]; Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d at 628; Casanova v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 279 AD2d 495 [2001]; Packer v Mirasola, 256 AD2d 394[1998]; see also Borges v Zukowski,22 AD3d 439 [2005]). The defendants' conclusory and speculative assertions concerningthe plaintiff's speed and possible negligence were not supported by competent evidence (see Maloney v Niewender, 27 AD3d426, 426-427 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.