ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court was correct in denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in this negligence action stemming from a motor vehicle/pedestrian accident. There exist triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff pedestrian was comparatively negligent (see, Shachnow v. Myers, 229 A.D.2d 432 ; Thoma v. Ronai, 189 A.D.2d 635, affd 82 N.Y.2d 736 ; Holt v. New York City Tr. Auth., 151 A.D.2d 460 ; Cincotta v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 539 ;Tannenbaum v. Mandell, 51 A.D.2d 593 ; Rodriguez v. Robert, 47 A.D.2d 548 ), and whether the defendant motorist exercised due care to avoid the collision (see, Finkel v. Benoit, 211 A.D.2d 749 ;Gianniosis v. LID Mgt. Finishing Serv. Co., 194 A.D.2d 413 ;Matter of Russell v. Adduci, 140 A.D.2d 844 ; Borgo v. Sontag, 98 A.D.2d 786 ; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146).
O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.