Thus, a defendant moving for summary judgment motion in an action such as this requires the prima facie demonstration of his or her freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law (id.). While amenable to resolution as a matter of law, the issue of comparative negligence is generally one for the trier of fact (id.). In this case, the Court opines that defendants Harvey and Occhiuto have failed to make a prima facie showing of their freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law (see Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 AD3d 787, 789 [2nd Dept 2014]). Rather, the EBT testimony of the defendant driver raises triable issues of fact as to whether Occhiuto failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of her senses; failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision; and/or was traveling in excessive rate of speed in the heavy rain that was falling at the time (id.; see Spicola v. Piracci, 2 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2003]).

Thus, a defendant moving for summary judgment motion in an action such as this requires the prima facie demonstration of his or her freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law (id.). While amenable to resolution as a matter of law, the issue of comparative negligence is generally one for the trier of fact (id.). In this case, the Court opines that defendants Harvey and Occhiuto have failed to make a prima facie showing of their freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law (see Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 AD3d 787, 789 [2nd Dept 2014]). Rather, the EBT testimony of the defendant driver raises triable issues of fact as to whether Occhiuto failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of her senses; failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision; and/or was traveling in excessive rate of speed in the heavy rain that was falling at the time (id.; see Spicola v. Piracci, 2 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2003]).