Opinion
2013-01-16
Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber of counsel), for appellants. Silverman Sclar Shin & Byrne PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Vincent Chirico of counsel), for respondents.
Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber of counsel), for appellants. Silverman Sclar Shin & Byrne PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Vincent Chirico of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The evidence submitted in support of the motion did not establish that the plaintiff driver was free from comparative fault, and that the defendant driver's alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) was the sole proximate cause of the accident ( see Reyes v. Marchese, 96 A.D.3d 926, 927, 946 N.Y.S.2d 500;*895Simmons v. Canady, 95 A.D.3d 1201, 1203, 945 N.Y.S.2d 138;Matamoro v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 722, 722–723, 941 N.Y.S.2d 684). In light of the plaintiffs' failure to meet their prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendants' opposition papers ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).