| Magloire v Sitner |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00756 [91 AD3d 919] |
| Jnury 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vixamar Magloire, Respondent, v Americo Sitner et al.,Respondents, and Valerie Mays, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert J. Renna, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Michael Banuchis of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent. James Bilello, Westbury, N.Y. (Franshone Winn of counsel), fordefendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Valerie Mays appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.),dated November 22, 2010, as denied her cross motion for summary judgment, in effect,dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable tothe respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
This action arises out of a three-car accident on July 6, 2008, on Coney Island Avenue, inBrooklyn. The defendant Valerie Mays cross-moved for summary judgment, in effect, dismissingthe complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her. In the order appealed from, theSupreme Court, among other things, denied the cross motion. We affirm the order insofar asappealed from by Mays.
In support of her cross motion, Mays submitted evidence that, in itself, demonstrated theexistence of triable issues of fact as to whether she was negligent in the happening of theaccident. Consequently, she failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law, and the Supreme Court properly denied her cross motion, without regard to thesufficiency of the opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324[1986]; Darras v Romans, 85 AD3d710, 712 [2011]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.