| Tringali v Sieber |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02031 [115 AD3d 934] |
| March 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Kristen Tringali, Plaintiff, v Mary K. Sieber et al.,Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Patrick Morgan, Third-PartyDefendant-Appellant. |
—[*1] Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Karen A. Jockimo ofcounsel), for defendants/third-party plaintiffs-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendantappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, NassauCounty (Galasso, J.), dated April 20, 2012, as denied his motion for summary judgmentdismissing the third-party complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the third-party defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the third-party complaint. The third-party defendant failed todemonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since theevidence submitted in support of his motion failed to establish that he was free fromcomparative fault, or that the alleged negligence of the defendant/third-party plaintiffMary K. Sieber was the sole proximate cause of the subject accident (see generally Arias v Tarar,100 AD3d 668 [2012]; Camarillo v Sandoval, 90 AD3d 593 [2011]; Cohn v Khan, 89 AD3d1052 [2011]; Ruthinoski vBrinkman, 63 AD3d 900 [2009]). Specifically, the conflicting depositiontestimony submitted by the third-party defendant in support of his motion revealed theexistence of triable issues of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred (see Martin v Cartledge, 102AD3d 841 [2013]; Martinez v Martinez, 93 AD3d 767 [2012]).
Since the third-party defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law, we need not examine the sufficiency of the papers submittedin opposition to the motion (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.