77 AD3d at 917; Nigri v City of New York, 294 AD2d at 478). Although Diaz testified at his deposition that he did not spill used cooking oil on the steps and that he last disposed of oil "[a]round three days prior" to the plaintiff's accident, "[o]n a motion for summary judgment . . . , self-serving statements of an interested party which refer to matters exclusively within that party's knowledge create an issue of credibility which should not be decided by the court but should be left for the trier of facts" (Sacher v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 142 AD2d 567, 568). Since the deli defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Palmeri v Erricola, 122 AD3d 697). RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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 ).

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 ).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

pt 2019]; Cruz v Valentine Packaging Corp., 167 A.D.3d 707, 89 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2d Dept 2018]; Rine v Quadt, 151 A.D.3d 1829, 57 N.Y.2d 318 [4th Dept 2017]; cf. Lopez v Morel-Ulla, 144 A.D.3d 504, 41 N.Y.S.3d 39 [1st Dept 2016]). The inconsistencies in the parties' deposition testimonies raise not only questions of fact regarding comparative negligence, but also questions of credibility, which must be resolved by the trier of fact (see Martinez v Martinez, 93 A.D.3d 767, 941 N.Y.S.2d 189 [2d Dept 2012]; Camarillo v Sandoval, 90 A.D.3d 593, 933 N.Y.S.2d 906 [2d Dept 2011]). Additionally, the transcript of defendant's deposition testimony 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 Elkholy v Dawkins, 175 A.D.3d 1487, 109 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2d Dept 2019]; flo/YuvSo/is, 154 A.D.3d 985, 62N.Y.S.3d511 [2d Dept 2017]; Palmeri v Erricola, 122 A.D.3d 697, 996 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2d Dept 2014]). Therefore, defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Stafford v Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp., 164 A.D.3d 1398, 82 N.Y.S.3d 539 [2d Dept 2018]; Cervantes v McDermott, 159 A.D.3d 669, 71 N.Y.S.3d 612 [2d Dept 2018]).

Empire's unsupported speculation fails to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to its vicarious liability under this provision of the VTL. Indeed, Empire has failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing the cement truck operator's freedom from fault in the happening of this accident as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Palmeri v Erricola, 122 AD3d 697, 698 [2014; Cattan v Sutton, 120 AD3d 537, 538 [2014]).