| Arazashvilli v Executive Fleet Mgt., Corp. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09074 [90 AD3d 682] |
| December 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Rusudan Arazashvilli et al., Respondents, v ExecutiveFleet Management, Corp., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Taller & Wizman, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Y. David Taller of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 30, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs'motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs allegedly sustained personal injuries when, as pedestrians, they were struck bya vehicle owned by the defendant Executive Fleet Management, Corp. and operated by thedefendant Segundo F. Machagilla Pinto at an intersection which was controlled by traffic lights.The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that they exercised due care and were crossing the street within a crosswalk withthe traffic light in their favor when they were struck by the defendants' vehicle (see Martinez v Kreychmar, 84 AD3d1037 [2011]; Rosenblatt vVenizelos, 49 AD3d 519 [2008]; see also Lariviere v New York City Tr. Auth., 82 AD3d 1165[2011]; Qamar v Kanarek, 82 AD3d860 [2011]; Klee v Americas BestBottling Co., Inc., 60 AD3d 911 [2009]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise atriable issue of fact. The defendant driver did not submit an affidavit setting forth his version ofhow the accident occurred.
Moreover, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgmentwas premature, because they did not demonstrate that additional discovery might lead to relevantevidence, or that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within theknowledge and control of the plaintiffs (see Martinez v Kreychmar, 84 AD3d 1037 [2011]; Davis v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 83 AD3d991 [2011]; Deleg v Vinci, 82AD3d 1146 [2011]; Rainford vSung S. Han, 18 AD3d 638 [2005]). "The mere hope or speculation that evidencesufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discoveryprocess is insufficient to deny the motion" (Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary [*2]judgment on the issue of liability. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.