| Deleg v Vinci |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02619 [82 AD3d 1146] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Maria Deleg et al., Appellants, v Mark C. Vinci et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appealfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered August 6,2010, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability withoutprejudice to renew after the completion of discovery.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on theissue of liability. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs demonstrated that the vehicle drivenby the defendant Mark C. Vinci and owned by the defendant James P. Vinci struck a vehicle inwhich the plaintiff Maria Deleg was a passenger. The accident occurred when Mark C. Vincifailed to stop at a red signal and proceeded through an intersection in violation of Vehicle andTraffic Law § 1111 (d) (2), striking the plaintiffs' vehicle (see Monteleone v Jung PyoHong, 79 AD3d 988 [2010]; Ramos v Triboro Coach Corp., 31 AD3d 625 [2006];Borges v Zukowski, 22 AD3d 439 [2005]; Casanova v New York City Tr. Auth.,279 AD2d 495 [2001]). In opposition to the motion, the defendants failed to raise a triable issueof fact (see Cavitch v Mateo, 58 AD3d 592 [2009]).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiffs' motion was not premature,as the defendants failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or thatfacts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge andcontrol of the plaintiffs and the nonparty driver (see Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45AD3d 736 [2007]). "[T]he defendants' purported need to conduct discovery did not warrantdenial of the motion since they already had personal knowledge of the relevant facts"(Abramov v Miral Corp., 24 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]). "The mere hope or speculation thatevidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during thediscovery process is insufficient to deny the motion" (Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34AD3d 759, 760 [2006]; see Corwin v Heart Share Human Servs. of N.Y., 66 AD3d 814[2009]; Monteleone v Jung Pyo Hong, 79 AD3d 988 [2010]).[*2]
Consequently, the Supreme Court should have grantedthe plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Covello, J.P., Belen, Halland Cohen, JJ., concur.