Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Generally, a worker traveling to and from work is not acting within the scope of employment because the element of control by the employer is lacking ( see, Lundberg v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 467, 470; Hawkins v. Newman, 177 A.D.2d 683). The plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of any table issue of fact as to whether the defendant Kin S. Mui was using his automobile in the furtherance of work activity of his employer, the defendant Con Edison, or whether Con Edison exercised any degree of control over him at the time of the accident ( see, Hawkins v. Newman, supra).
The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. "`Evidence of skidding out of control is only prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the driver; it does not mandate a finding of negligence. Such evidence together with the explanation given by the driver, presents factual questions for determination by the jury'" ( Zimmermann v. Spaziante, 143 A.D.2d 745, 746, quoting Vadala v. Carroll, 91 A.D.2d 865, affd 59 N.Y.2d 751; see also, Copeman v. Moran, 236 A.D.2d 507).
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.