Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In support of her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that she was free from comparative fault ( see Singh v Doo Jae Lee, 76 AD3d 555; Roman v Al Limousine, Inc., 76 AD3d 552; Yuen hum v Wallace, 70 AD3d 1013; Sale v Lee, 49 AD3d 854; Valore v Mcintosh, 8 AD 3d 662). As such, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendant's liability ( see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Since the plaintiff failed to meet her burden, we need not review the sufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.