After the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. Although the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law in traveling the wrong way on 80th Street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1234[a] ; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1127[a] ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ), there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and the proponent of a motion for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law (see Cattan v. Sutton, 120 A.D.3d 537, 538, 990 N.Y.S.2d 848 ; Sirlin v. Schreib, 117 A.D.3d 819, 985 N.Y.S.2d 688 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d at 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ; Burnett v. Reisenauer, 107 A.D.3d 656, 967 N.Y.S.2d 105 ). Here, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that she was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident (see Cattan v. Sutton, 120 A.D.3d at 538, 990 N.Y.S.2d 848 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d at 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ; Allen v. Echols, 88 A.D.3d 926, 926–927, 931 N.Y.S.2d 402 ).

The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. The defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground of no liability. Although Sanchez was negligent as a matter of law in traveling the wrong way on Irving Avenue (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1234[a] ; see also Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ), the transcript of the defendant's deposition testimony, submitted in support of his motion, presented a triable issue of fact as to whether he failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses (see Nunez v. Olympic Fence & Railing Co., Inc., 138 A.D.3d 807, 29 N.Y.S.3d 546 ; Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d at 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ; Lu Yuan Yang v. Howsal Cab Corp., 106 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 966 N.Y.S.2d 167 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground of no liability.

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from fault in the happening of the accident (see Gezelter v. Pecora, 129 A.D.3d 1021, 1021–1022, 13 N.Y.S.3d 141 ). Thus, the fact that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle in the wrong direction on a one-way street would not preclude a finding that negligence by the defendant's employee contributed to the accident (see Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ).

"A driver is negligent where he or she failed to see that which, through proper use of his or her senses, the driver should have seen" (Mehta v Keaveney, 216 A.D.3d 635, 635 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "An accident can have more than one proximate cause, and although it is generally for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause, it may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts" (Fox v Murgolo, 191 A.D.3d 765, 766 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the evidence the defendants submitted in support of their motion, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver was free from fault in the happening of the accident (see Mehta v Keaveney, 216 A.D.3d at 635; Espiritu v Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court should have denied their motion, without regard to the sufficiency of

The moving defendants submitted, inter alia, dashcam footage of this nighttime accident from Bartolomei's perspective, which indicated that his view of the area surrounding the stopped vehicle that he passed on the right was partially obscured (see Vigdorchik v Vigdorchik, 209 A.D.3d 923, 924). The moving defendants therefore failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Bartolomei exercised reasonable care under the conditions presented, including, among other things, whether he should have stopped or at least lowered the rate of speed of his vehicle before attempting to pass the stopped vehicle, regardless of whether he had the right-of-way as compared to Rashid (see Miller v County of Suffolk, 163 A.D.3d 954, 956-957; Kadashev v Medina, 134 A.D.3d 767, 767-768; Canales v Arichabala, 123 A.D.3d 869, 870; Espiritu v Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789; cf. Moreno v Gomez, 58 A.D.3d 611, 612). To the extent the moving defendants assert that Bartolomei exercised reasonable care simply because he was traveling at or under the speed limit, their contention is without merit (see e.g. Ballentine v Perrone, 179 A.D.3d 993, 993-995).

"Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself into a dangerous position" ( Sturm v. Chaudhary, 210 A.D.3d 927, 927, 176 N.Y.S.3d 798 ; seePalma v. Sherman, 55 A.D.3d 891, 891, 867 N.Y.S.2d 111 ). Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a), motorists must "exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal" on the roadway and to "give warning by sounding the horn when necessary" (seeBallentine v. Perrone, 179 A.D.3d 993, 994, 114 N.Y.S.3d 696 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ). A motorist also has a "common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses" ( Lieb v. Jacobson, 202 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 163 N.Y.S.3d 586 ; seeKruter v. United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. Co., 210 A.D.3d 671, 672, 177 N.Y.S.3d 692 ). Here, the defendant, who submitted the transcripts of his and the plaintiff's deposition testimony, failed to establish, prima facie, that his conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident.

In this case, the evidence submitted in support of the defendant's motion, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Boulos v Lerner-Harrington, 124 A.D.3d 709), failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendant was free from fault in the happening of the accident. The defendant's submissions did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether she was negligent in failing to see that which through the proper use of her senses she should have seen and whether she used reasonable care to avoid colliding with the plaintiff (see Fried v Misser, 115 A.D.3d 910, 911; Espiritu v Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789).

While Alex testified that he did not see the plaintiff's bicycle until it was inches away from him, the plaintiff testified that the defendants’ vehicle was approximately five to six cars away when his bicycle first entered the roadway. Thus, the defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether Alex failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses (seeMerola v. Beaird, 185 A.D.3d 679, 680, 124 N.Y.S.3d 873 ; Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ), or failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a] ; Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d at 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ). Since the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (seeWinegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Perrone was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident. In particular, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Perrone kept a proper lookout or was traveling at a reasonable and prudent speed as he approached the intersection in light of the conditions then present (seeInesta v. Florio, 159 A.D.3d 682, 71 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Ellis v. Vazquez, 155 A.D.3d at 695, 63 N.Y.S.3d 530 ; Rojas v. Solis, 154 A.D.3d 985, 62 N.Y.S.3d 511 ; Mu–Jin Chen v. Cardenia, 138 A.D.3d at 1128, 31 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; Canales v. Arichabala, 123 A.D.3d at 870, 1 N.Y.S.3d 140 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 787, 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ; Colpan v. Allied Cent. Ambulette, Inc., 97 A.D.3d at 777, 949 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; Tapia v. Royal Tours Serv., Inc., 67 A.D.3d 894, 896, 889 N.Y.S.2d 225 ; see alsoFerrer v. Harris, 55 N.Y.2d 285, 291, 449 N.Y.S.2d 162, 434 N.E.2d 231, affd 56 N.Y.2d 737, 451 N.Y.S.2d 740, 436 N.E.2d 1342 ; Ortega v. Ting, 172 A.D.3d 1217, 102 N.Y.S.3d 110 ; St. Andrew v. O'Brien, 45 A.D.3d 1024, 1028, 845 N.Y.S.2d 184 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (seeAlvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).

The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they were free from fault in the happening of the accident, because their submissions in support of the motion contained conflicting accounts of how the accident happened and raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 by failing to exercise due care to avoid the collision with the plaintiff (seeRodriguez v. Areloina , 137 A.D.3d 892, 893, 26 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Ortiz v. AGL Trucking Corp. , 130 A.D.3d 592, 10 N.Y.S.3d 897 ; Espiritu v. Shuttle Express Coach, Inc. , 115 A.D.3d 787, 789, 982 N.Y.S.2d 155 ; see alsoColpan v. Allied Cent. Ambulette, Inc. , 97 A.D.3d 776, 777, 949 N.Y.S.2d 124 ). The defendants' failure to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law required denial of their motion regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers (seeWinegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).