McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (
Patrick M. Murphy and Jesse Siegel of counsel), for appellants. Bradley Gillam, Melville, N.Y. (Huy M. Le of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Ruthanne M. Byrne–Lowell and James R. Lowell, Jr., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated June 26, 2012, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” ( Cox v. Nunez, 23 A.D.3d 427, 427, 805 N.Y.S.2d 604;see Burnett v. Reisenauer, 107 A.D.3d 656, 656, 967 N.Y.S.2d 105;Graeber–Nagel v. Naranjan, 101 A.D.3d 1078, 1078, 956 N.Y.S.2d 530;Pollack v. Margolin, 84 A.D.3d 1341, 1342, 924 N.Y.S.2d 282;Kim v. Acosta, 72 A.D.3d 648, 648, 897 N.Y.S.2d 721). Therefore, a movant seeking summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing that he or she is free from comparative fault ( see Burnett v. Reisenauer, 107 A.D.3d at 656, 967 N.Y.S.2d 105;Graeber–Nagel v. Naranjan, 101 A.D.3d at 1078, 956 N.Y.S.2d 530;Pollack v. Margolin, 84 A.D.3d at 1342, 924 N.Y.S.2d 282;Mackenzie v. City of New York, 81 A.D.3d 699, 699, 916 N.Y.S.2d 511;Bonilla v. Gutierrez, 81 A.D.3d 581, 582, 915 N.Y.S.2d 634;Roman v. A1 Limousine, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 552, 552, 907 N.Y.S.2d 251).
Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the appellants submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties, which presented conflicting versions of the material facts surrounding the happening of the accident. Under these circumstances, the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of comparative fault ( see Burnett v. Reisenauer, 107 A.D.3d at 656, 967 N.Y.S.2d 105;Simmons v. Canady, 95 A.D.3d 1201, 1203, 945 N.Y.S.2d 138). Accordingly, the appellants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's papers in opposition ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;Burnett v. Reisenauer, 107 A.D.3d at 656, 967 N.Y.S.2d 105;Simmons v. Canady, 95 A.D.3d at 1203, 945 N.Y.S.2d 138).
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.