| Berrios-Lemus v Village of Spring Val. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07607 [122 AD3d 650] |
| November 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Arturo Berrios-Lemus, Respondent, v Villageof Spring Valley et al., Appellants. |
O'Connor McGuinness Conte Doyle Oleson Watson & Loftus, LLP (Congdon,Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y.[Kathleen D. Foley], of counsel), for appellants.
Greenstein & Milbauer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew W. Bokar ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from aninterlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Loehr, J.), enteredMarch 4, 2014, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 27, 2014,granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, is in favorof the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he was struck by a police vehicle owned bythe defendant Village of Spring Valley and operated by the defendant Lech Rosenbaumwhile he was walking in a cross walk in the Village of Spring Valley. As a result of thisincident, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover damagesfor personal injuries. After issue was joined, the plaintiff moved for summary judgmenton the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and thereafter, enteredan interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the issueof liability.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff established, prima facie, his entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, and that he was free fromcomparative fault (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; Ramos v Bartis, 112 AD3d804 [2013]; Buchinger vJazz Leasing Corp., 95 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2012]). The plaintiff demonstratedthat before crossing he waited for the traffic signal to be in his favor, and that prior toentering the crosswalk he exercised due care by looking in both directions of theroadway (see Buchinger v Jazz Leasing Corp., 95 AD3d at 1053; Martinez v Kreychmar, 84AD3d 1037, 1038 [2011]). While crossing, he observed the police vehicle operatedby Rosenbaum approach the intersection and slow down. Believing that it was going tostop, as the red light was against it, he continued to cross. He was struck by the vehiclebefore he could finish crossing. In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, thedefendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
[*2] Furthermore, contrary to the defendants' contentions,the motion was not premature. The defendants failed to demonstrate "that additionaldiscovery may lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition tothe motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff[ ]"(Buchinger v Jazz Leasing Corp., 95 AD3d at 1053; see Arazashvilli v Executive FleetMgt., Corp., 90 AD3d 682 [2011]). "The 'mere hope or speculation thatevidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered' byfurther discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion" (Woodard v Thomas, 77 AD3d738, 740 [2010], quoting Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006];see Arazashvilli v Executive Fleet Mgt., Corp., 90 AD3d at 683; Martinez vKreychmar, 84 AD3d at 1038).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly entered an interlocutory judgment in favorof the plaintiff and against the defendants, upon the order granting the plaintiff's motionfor summary judgment on the issue of liability. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi andLaSalle, JJ., concur.