| Kusz v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07203 [88 AD3d 768] |
| October 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alfred Kusz et al., Appellants-Respondents, v New YorkCity Transit Authority et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
—[*1] Sciretta & Venterina, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marilyn Venterina of counsel), forrespondents-appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), enteredJune 10, 2010, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, withoutprejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery, and the defendants cross-appeal from somuch of the same order as, upon denying the plaintiffs' motion, did so without prejudice torenewal.
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal liesas of right from the portion of the order cross-appealed from, and we decline to grant leave tocross-appeal (see CPLR 5701); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff Alfreda Kusz (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was crossing Jackson Avenue inQueens County when she was struck by a New York City bus driven by the defendant JoseMateo (hereinafter the defendant driver). The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlementto judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the defendants by demonstratingthat the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way to the injured plaintiff, who was crossingthe street within the crosswalk with the pedestrian crossing signal in her favor, after looking bothways (see Benedikt v Certified Lbr.Corp., 60 AD3d 798 [2009]; Rosenblatt v Venizelos, 49 AD3d 519 [2008]).
In opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding the injured plaintiff'scomparative negligence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issueof liability was properly denied without prejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery(see CPLR 3212 [f]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.