Opinion
2011-10-11
Alfred KUSZ, et al., appellants-respondents,v.NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., respondents-appellants.
Lipsig Shapey Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Alan M. Shapey and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Murray Greenberg and Brian J. Isaac], of counsel), for appellants-respondents.Sciretta & Venterina, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marilyn Venterina of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of *893 an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), entered June 10, 2010, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, without prejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as, upon denying the plaintiffs' motion, did so without prejudice to renewal.
ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from the portion of the order cross-appealed from, and we decline to grant leave to cross-appeal ( see CPLR 5701); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff Alfreda Kusz (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was crossing Jackson Avenue in Queens County when she was struck by a New York City bus driven by the defendant Jose Mateo (hereinafter the defendant driver). The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the defendants by demonstrating that the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way to the injured plaintiff, who was crossing the street within the crosswalk with the pedestrian crossing signal in her favor, after looking both ways ( see Benedikt v. Certified Lbr. Corp., 60 A.D.3d 798, 875 N.Y.S.2d 526; Rosenblatt v. Venizelos, 49 A.D.3d 519, 853 N.Y.S.2d 578).
In opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding the injured plaintiff's comparative negligence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly denied without prejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery ( see CPLR 3212[f] ).
DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.