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 ).

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 ).

Supreme Court also correctly determined that BorgWarner failed to establish a prima facie case regarding proximate cause. Notably, " ‘there may be more than one proximate cause of an accident’ " ( O'Brien v. Couch , 124 A.D.3d 975, 977, 1 N.Y.S.3d 485 [2015], quoting Ayotte v. Gervasio , 186 A.D.2d 963, 964, 589 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1992], affd 81 N.Y.2d 1062, 601 N.Y.S.2d 463, 619 N.E.2d 400 [1993] ), and, for a defendant to make out a prima facie case, it must establish "freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law" ( Palmeri v. Erricola , 122 A.D.3d 697, 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2014] ; accordMcKenna v. Reale , 137 A.D.3d 1533, 1534, 29 N.Y.S.3d 596 [2016] ). BorgWarner's submissions failed to do so inasmuch as a report done by a police investigator did not address the placement of the yield sign or overall design of the south exit road.

Assuming that decedent was negligent, because there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (see O'Brien v. Couch, 124 A.D.3d 975, 977, 1 N.Y.S.3d 485 [2015] ), defendant's obligation on this motion was to establish his “freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law” (Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2014] ; see Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 N.Y.2d 1062, 1063, 601 N.Y.S.2d 463, 619 N.E.2d 400 [1993] ). Drivers have a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances presented and to see and respond to the conditions in the roadway within their view (see Rivera v. Fritts, 136 A.D.3d 1249, 1251, 25 N.Y.S.3d 741 [2016] ; Smith v. Allen, 124 A.D.3d 1128, 1130, 2 N.Y.S.3d 647 [2015] ; see also PJI 2:77 ).

However, even if the Court were to assume that the decedent and driver were both negligent, in order for Borg Warner to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, it would have "to establish [its] 'freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law.'" McKenna v. Reale, 137 AD3d 1533, 1534 (3rd Dept. 2016) (quoting Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 AD3d 697, 698 [2nd Dept. 2014]). If the movant fails to do that, the motion for summary judgment would be denied regardless of the insufficiency of the opposition papers.

In this respect, "the proponent of a motion for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law" (Palmeri v Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 698 [2d Dept 2014]).

The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he saw the defendant's vehicle make a sudden right turn in front of him one second prior to the impact. Thus, the defendant's own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses (seeGonzalez v. Gonzales, 212 A.D.3d 716, 717, 183 N.Y.S.3d 113 ; Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ), and failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a] ; Gonzalez v. Gonzales, 212 A.D.3d at 717, 183 N.Y.S.3d 113 ). The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, he failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted the deposition transcripts of both parties, which failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant kept a proper lookout and exercised reasonable care to avoid a collision with the plaintiff's bicycle (seeEllis v. Vazquez, 155 A.D.3d at 695, 63 N.Y.S.3d 530 ; Rojas v. Solis, 154 A.D.3d 985, 986, 62 N.Y.S.3d 511 ; Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; see alsoHurst v. Belomme, 142 A.D.3d 642, 643, 36 N.Y.S.3d 735 ). Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (seeWinegrad v. New York Univ.

In order for a defendant driver to establish entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability in a motor vehicle collision case, the driver must demonstrate, prima facie, inter alia, that he or she kept the proper lookout, or that his or her alleged negligence, if any, did not contribute to the accident (see id. at 525, 906 N.Y.S.2d 317 ). Here, although the surveillance video demonstrated that the plaintiff was negligent in darting out on his bicycle into oncoming traffic (see Vehicle Traffic Law § 1231 ), the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Vazquez saw what was to be seen, and that she exercised reasonable care in attempting to avoid the collision (see Palmeri v. Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 697–698, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; cf. Aiello v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 361, 362–363, 820 N.Y.S.2d 579 ). Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding liability.

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.