Opinion
2002-08252
Submitted May 6, 2003.
May 27, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 29, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Anthony Balsamo, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Catherine R. Everett of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, SONDRA MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
The plaintiff Robert Pearsall allegedly was injured when a vehicle in which he was a passenger crossed into the opposite lane of traffic, precipitating a head-on collision with a bus. He and his father commenced this action against the defendants Jeffrey Saracco and Thomas Saracco, the driver and owner of the vehicle, respectively.
In opposition to the plaintiffs' prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as matter of law on the issue of liability (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120[a]; Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 135; Gadon v. Oliva, 294 A.D.2d 397; Patti v. New York City Tr. Auth., 296 A.D.2d 484), the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Posner v. Hendler, 302 A.D.2d 509; Martinez v. Novin, 303 A.D.2d 653 [2d Dept, Mar. 24, 2003]; Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833). Further, the defendants did not establish that facts essential to oppose the motion were within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiffs (see CPLR 3212[f]; Halpern Dev. Venture v. Board of Trustees of Vil. of N. Tarrytown, 222 A.D.2d 652). Thus, the plaintiffs' motion should have been granted.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, S. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.