Opinion
July 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well established that negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by summary judgment, since that remedy is appropriate only where the negligence or lack of negligence of the defendant is established as a matter of law (see, Ugarriza v. Schmeider, 46 N.Y.2d 471; Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361). In the instant record, the defendant's lack of negligence was not established as a matter of law. The defendant's motion papers merely denied the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendant's vehicle struck the plaintiffs' vehicle or caused it to swerve into another car as it passed through an intersection. There remain triable issues of fact as to the defendant's possible contribution to the plaintiffs' accident. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.