New York Bike Accident Attorney 866-352-6944
New York Bike Accident Lawyer Cases We Handle Partner Profiles In The News BikeWitness.Org Testimonials Contact
Social Media

Court Denies Summary Judgement to Cyclists in a "Dooring" Crash

ALFREDO VILLA, Appellant,
v.
KATHERINE LEANDROU, Respondent.

2011-06407.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided April 17, 2012.

RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As properly determined by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The proof submitted by the plaintiff in support of his motion failed to establish, as a matter of law, that he was free from comparative negligence (see Roman v A1 Limousine, Inc., 76 AD3d 552 [2010]; McFadden v Bruno, 37 AD3d 177 [2007]; Scibelli v Hopchick, 27 AD3d 720 [2006]; Wallace v Dubin, 20 AD3d 412 [2005]; Valore v McIntosh, 8 AD3d 662 [2004]; Eastmond v Wen Po Wong, 300 AD2d 344 [2002]). The failure to make such a showing requires the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

NYCYCLELAWBLOG, Cyclelawblog, cyclelaw, bike blog, cyclelawblog, nycyclelaw,  nycyclelawblog, bikelawblog, blog, bikecrashblog, bike accident blog