| Skoczek v Delgado |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01739 [115 AD3d 844] |
| March 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carri Skoczek, Appellant, v Narcisco Delgado,Respondent. |
—[*1] Brand Glick & Brand, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Antonia Bortone of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated May 8, 2013, whichdenied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, without prejudice torenewal upon the completion of discovery.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On July 16, 2012, a weekday morning, the plaintiff was riding her bicycle westboundon Driggs Avenue in Brooklyn. At the intersection of Driggs and Graham Avenues, shewas struck by the defendant's vehicle, which was traveling southbound on GrahamAvenue. The only traffic control device at the intersection was a stop sign regulating theflow of traffic along Graham Avenue.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for heralleged personal injuries. Shortly after the defendant answered the complaint, theplaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Courtdenied the plaintiff's motion without prejudice to renewal upon the completion ofdiscovery.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment onthe issue of liability, without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery.Although the plaintiff bicyclist submitted evidence that the defendant motorist failed toyield the right of way to her in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a),she failed to establish that this violation was the sole proximate cause of the accident orthat she was free from comparative fault (see Stern v Amboy Bus Co., Inc., 102 AD3d 763, 763[2013]; Graeber-Nagel vNaranjan, 101 AD3d 1078 [2012]; Simmons v Canady, 95 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2012]). In lightof the plaintiff's failure to meet her prima facie burden, we need not consider thesufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.