FONTINA v. GARY

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs did not establish, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence ( see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737; Cator v Filipe, 47 AD3d 664; Albert v Klein, 15 AD3d 509, 510; Valore v McIntosh, 8 AD3d 662). Since the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden as the movants, we need not review the sufficiency of the defendants' opposition papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Valore v McIntosh, 8 AD3d 662).