Opinion
September 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Hughes, J.).
Plaintiff Noreen Moglia was driving northbound on State Route 28A in the Town of Ulster, Ulster County, on August 1, 1992 when defendant, traveling southbound on a motorcycle, collided with her vehicle. This action was commenced to recover for property damage to Moglia's automobile. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, presenting prima facie evidence that defendant had crossed the center line of the highway into Moglia's lane of traffic. In addition to Moglia's affidavit and deposition testimony, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of the investigating police officer stating the opinion that the location of skid marks and accident debris fixed the point of impact in Moglia's traffic lane. Further, defendant pleaded guilty to two traffic violations, including failure to keep right. Defendant opposed the motion with nothing more than the uncertain deposition testimony that, although the collision occurred near the center line, he did not know which side he was on when he struck Moglia. He also offered the self-serving explanation that his guilty plea was merely a matter of convenience. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Plaintiffs made a solid evidentiary showing that defendant's negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the accident and the damage to Moglia's vehicle ( see, Forbes v Plume, 202 A.D.2d 821; Eisenbach v Rogers, 158 A.D.2d 792, lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 983, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 752). Moglia was not required to anticipate that defendant's vehicle would cross over the center line into her lane ( see, Benedetto v City of New York, 166 A.D.2d 209, 210). Defendant failed in his obligation to assemble and lay bare affirmative proof that a genuine issue of fact existed ( see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563; Hasbrouck v City of Gloversville, 102 A.D.2d 905, affd 63 N.Y.2d 916). Defendant's speculation and conjecture concerning the accident was insufficient to meet this burden ( see, Cohen v Masten, 203 A.D.2d 774, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 809; Gouchie v Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Cardona, P.J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.