| Meng Wai Wang v Dailly News, L.P. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08915 [90 AD3d 624] |
| December 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Meng Wai Wang, Appellant, v Dailly News, L.P., et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Harris, King & Fodera (Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. [Caryn L. Lilling andJennifer B. Ettenger], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 13, 2011, which denied his motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On October 13, 2008, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the plaintiff was operating his motorvehicle in the right lane of the Brooklyn-bound side of the Manhattan Bridge. The plaintiffalleged that a truck owned by the defendant Dailly News, L.P., and operated by the defendantGiuseppi Amato, which was traveling in the left lane of the Brooklyn-bound side of theManhattan Bridge directly adjacent to the plaintiff's vehicle, crossed the line dividing the twolanes of traffic into the right lane, striking the plaintiff's vehicle. After issue was joined anddiscovery was completed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.
The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on theissue of liability by submitting admissible evidence that Amato made an unsafe lane change inviolation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a). The burden then shifted to the defendantsto raise a triable issue of fact (seeHarrison v Bailey, 79 AD3d 811 [2010]).
In opposition to the plaintiff's motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, Amato's affidavitand his deposition testimony, which were sufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to whetherthe plaintiff was the party who made an unsafe lane change in violation of Vehicle and TrafficLaw § 1128 (a) (see Harrison vBailey, 79 AD3d 811 [2010]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary [*2]judgment on the issue of liability. Mastro, A.P.J., Florio, Lott andCohen, JJ., concur.