Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
---------------------------------------------------------------------X Index: 607676/2023
ROBIN ELLIS,
Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION
IN OPPOSITION
-against-
THE VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE and Motion #1
MICHAEL E. OSWALD, Return Date: 1/17/24
Defendants. Hon. Lisa A. Cairo
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
SYED T. HASAN, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts
of the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury:
1. I am a member of the law firm of HAMMILL CROUTIER PENDER
KOEHLER LAWLESS & MOULTON, P.C., attorneys for the defendants THE VILLAGE
OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE (hereinafter “RVC”) and MICHAEL E. OSWALD, in the above
captioned action.
2. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action and make this
Affirmation upon information and belief based upon records maintained by the law firm of
HAMMILL, CROUTIER PENDER KOEHLER LAWLESS & MOULTON, P.C., which
records your affirmant believes to be true, complete, and correct.
3. This Affirmation is submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for an Order
(1) pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of
liability; (2) striking the defendants’ second affirmative defense of failure to use seatbelts;
(3) striking defendants’ third affirmative defense of culpable conduct/contributory
negligence of plaintiff; and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
1 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
4. This litigation arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on April 29,
2022, at or about the intersection of Hempstead Avenue and Cedar Avenue in Rockville
Centre, County of Nassau, New York. Plaintiff is alleging that due to the defendants’
negligence in the ownership, operation, maintenance and control of their motor vehicle,
the defendants’ vehicle came into contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle causing the accident
and resulting injuries. (See Summons and Complaint - NYSCEF Doc #1).
Procedural History
5. Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing and service of a Summons and
Complaint dated May 12, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc #1). Issue was joined on behalf of the
defendants, RVC and MICHAEL E. OSWALD by the filing/service of an Answer with
demands on June 23, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc #5). A Preliminary Conference was held, and
a Preliminary Conference Order was issued that setting forth the schedule for discovery
in this matter. (NYSCEF Doc #14).
6. To date, no party depositions have been held, including plaintiffs.
Factual History
7. Plaintiff appeared for a GML §50-h Claim Hearing on November 1, 2022. (A
copy of the plaintiff’s transcript of testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiff
testified that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 29, 2022
while driving a 2013 BMW X6. (pg. 9-10, lines 15-12). He testified to dropping his friend
off two blocks off from Hempstead Avenue and proceeding back towards Hempstead
Avenue on Cedar Avenue. (pg. 15, lines 4-9). He stated he had to stop at two (2) STOP
signs when proceeding back and the last STOP sign he was stopped at was on Cedar
Avenue. (id. at pg. 15, lines 10-21). When asked how long he had been stopped on the
2 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
STOP sign at Cedar Avenue before the accident, the plaintiff testified he was stopped for
30 minutes. (id. at pgs. 15-16, lines 22-3). When asked again for clarification on how long
he had been stopped on Cedar Avenue, he again testified that it was 30 minutes. (id. at
pg. 16, lines 4-15). Plaintiff then testified that he was stopped “way in front of the STOP
sign” when asked about his positioning at the STOP sign. (id. at pg. 16, lines 16-19).
When asked to clarify his testimony, he again testified that he was in fact in front of the
STOP sign. (id. at pg. 16, lines 20-21). Plaintiff was then asked a third time where his
vehicle was stopped at the STOP sign with plaintiff now testifying that it was stopped
behind the STOP sign where the STOP sign was located. (id. at pg. 17, lines 11-16). He
testified that he was stopped to the right on Cedar Avenue about three feet away from the
curb. (id. at pg. 18, lines 5-12).
8. Attached in support of plaintiff’s motion papers is an Affidavit from ROBIN
ELLIS dated October 26, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc #20). In his Affidavit, Mr. ELLIS attested
that his vehicle was stopped for a STOP sign while heading westbound on Cedar Avenue
at its intersection with Hempstead Avenue. (id.). He attested that he was stopped at the
STOP sign for approximately thirty seconds with his vehicle’s right turn signal illuminated
and intended to make a right turn onto Hempstead Avenue. (id.). He further attested that
his vehicle was fully stopped, his foot on the brake, and both brake and brake lights as
operational. (id.)
9. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, attached is an
Affidavit from the driver/defendant MICHAEL E. OSWALD. (Exhibit B). Mr. OSWALD
attests that on April 29, 2022, he was driving a 21-passenger handicap bus owned by
RVC and was travelling northbound on Hempstead Avenue. (id.). He attested that when
3 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
he reached the intersection of Cedar Avenue, he wanted to make a right turn. (id.). He
attested that prior to making the turn, he did not see any vehicles approaching Cedar
Avenue. He looked back to make sure he cleared the curb and street sign on the corner
and when he turned back and looked ahead, plaintiff’s car was there in the middle of the
roadway, not off to the side near the curb on the right by the STOP sign. (id.). (Emphasis
added.). The point of impact between the two vehicles was in the middle of the roadway
with plaintiff’s vehicle only being moved by police to the curb once they arrived at the
scene of the accident. (id.). He further attested that plaintiff’s vehicle had not come to a
complete stop just prior to the impact. (id.). (Emphasis added.).
11. Attached is a certified copy of the police accident report, as Exhibit C. The
police report itself includes a statement from the plaintiff stating he was driving westbound
on Cedar Avenue and slowing down while approaching the STOP sign when defendant’s
vehicle made a wide turn onto Cedar Avenue and collided with the front of his vehicle.
(id.). (Emphasis added.).
Argument
12. Based on the GML §50-h testimony, certified police report, and the Affidavits
of both plaintiff and defendant, the record is clear that there exists clear disputed issues
of material facts. In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish its
cause sufficiently to allow the court to direct judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Gilbert
Frank Corp. v Federal Ins., Co., 70 NY2d 966, 525 NYS2d 793 (1988). This the movant
must do by the tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form. Zuckerman v City of New
York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 (1980). The drastic remedy of summary judgment,
therefore, is only appropriate where a thorough examination of the merits clearly
4 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
demonstrates the absence of any issue of fact. Vamattam v Thomas, 205 AD2d 615, 613
NYS2d 220 2d Dept (1994). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must accept
the pleadings as true, and view the facts in a light most favorable to the one opposing
the motion. (Lemonda v Sutton, 268 AD2d 383, 702 NYS2d 275 [1st Dept 2000]).
(Emphasis added.). The parties’ competing contentions must be viewed in a manner
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v
Dino & Artie’s Automotive Transmission Co., 168 AD2d 610, 563 NYS2d 449 [2d Dept
1990]).
13. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the issue is not whether the
proponent of the motion can ultimately prevail, but whether there exists a substantial issue
of fact regarding liability that requires a plenary trial. Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d
247 (1980). Thus, “the court’s role is limited to issue finding, not issue resolving.” Amatulli
v. Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532 (1991).
14. Here, the evidence submitted by both parties present conflicting versions of
the events that occurred on April 29, 2022. There are various material facts that are in
dispute including whether the plaintiff’s (ELLIS) vehicle had come to a complete stop or
was at a complete stop at the time of the accident. Another material fact in dispute is the
location of plaintiff’s vehicle just prior to the impact as the Affidavit of Mr. OSWALD clearly
attests that the point of impact of the collision was in the middle of the roadway on Cedar
Avenue and not by the STOP sign on the right by the curb. (Exhibit B). The plaintiff states
in his Affidavit that he was stopped at the STOP sign for approximately 30 seconds while
Mr. OSWALD’s Affidavit clearly states that he observed no vehicles just prior to making
his turn.
5 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
15. Plaintiff also could not have been stopped on Cedar Avenue for 30 or so
seconds prior to the collision according to the certified police report as the plaintiff stated
he was driving westbound on Cedar Avenue and slowing down while approaching the
STOP sign when the collision happened. (Exhibit C).
16. Attorney Sawicki’s Affirmation states that defendant violated Vehicle and
Traffic Law §1160(a) but fails to consider that plaintiff’s vehicle was in the middle of the
roadway, making it impractical for any size vehicle to make a right turn.
17. Plaintiff further states that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law
§1180(a) and §1212 but does not allege or provide any sort of evidence that could account
for the speed of defendant’s vehicle or the nature of defendant’s driving prior to the
collision.
18. Plaintiff does not provide any substance to any of the claims for violations
of Vehicle and Traffic laws other than stating that such statutes were violated. Plaintiff has
thus unequivocally failed to meet his burden of showing prima facie negligence by the
defendant to have the burden shift to defendant to provide a non-negligent explanation
for the accident. Plaintiff’s own GML §50-h testimony leaves material questions of facts
in dispute including but not limited to: where exactly the accident occurred; how the
accident occurred; the location of the vehicles prior to the impact; whether any vehicles
took mitigating steps to avoid the collision; and whether plaintiff’s vehicle had come to a
complete stop prior to the accident.
19. Furthermore, it should be noted that depositions have yet to be held in this
matter. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion must be denied as premature. Pursuant to Smith
v. New York, 133 AD2d 818 (2d Dept 1987), a motion for summary judgment was denied
6 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
when "facts essential to justify opposition to the motion may exist but cannot be stated at
this time as they are within the exclusive knowledge of” a party that had yet to be deposed.
Here, depositions are critical to ascertain precisely how the accident occurred. This claim
is not based on “mere hope and speculation” as evident by the evidence noted above that
presents clear triable issues of material facts. Party depositions are also critical in
determining the extent of culpable conduct/contributory negligence of the plaintiff as well
as proper use of seatbelt during the time of the accident. As such, plaintiff’s assertion to
strike defendant’s affirmative defenses is also premature. Defendants must be permitted
to depose the plaintiff in this case prior to any summary judgment motion being heard. A
self-serving Affidavit is submitted by plaintiff, leaving the defendants with no opportunity
to question the plaintiff as to any element of said Affidavit.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully reequsted that this Court issue an Order, pursuant
to CPLR §3212, denying the plaintiff’s motion for an Order (1) pursuant to CPLR §3212
granting summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability; (2) striking the defendants’
second affirmative defense of failure to use seatbelts; (3) striking defendants’ third
affirmative defense of culpable conduct/contributory negligence of plaintiff; and for such
other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Syosset, New York
December 26, 2023
Syed T. Hasan
SYED T. HASAN
7 of 8
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Affirmation in Opposition was prepared using a
proportionally spaced typeface, as follows:
NAME OF TYPEFACE: Arial
POINT SIZE: 12
LINE SPACING: Double
WORD COUNT: 1968
The total number of words in the Affirmation in Opposition are
in full compliance with Rule 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules
for the Supreme Court and County Court.
Dated: Syosset, New York
December 26, 2023
Syed T. Hasan
SYED T. HASAN
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ---------------------------------------------------------------------X Index: 607676/2023 ROBIN ELLIS, Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION -against- THE VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE and Motion #1 MICHAEL E. OSWALD, Return Date: 1/17/24 Defendants. Hon. Lisa A. Cairo ---------------------------------------------------------------------X SYED T. HASAN, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury: 1. I am a member of the law firm of HAMMILL CROUTIER PENDER KOEHLER LAWLESS & MOULTON, P.C., attorneys for the defendants THE VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE (hereinafter “RVC”) and MICHAEL E. OSWALD, in the above captioned action. 2. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action and make this Affirmation upon information and belief based upon records maintained by the law firm of HAMMILL, CROUTIER PENDER KOEHLER LAWLESS & MOULTON, P.C., which records your affirmant believes to be true, complete, and correct. 3. This Affirmation is submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for an Order (1) pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability; (2) striking the defendants’ second affirmative defense of failure to use seatbelts; (3) striking defendants’ third affirmative defense of culpable conduct/contributory negligence of plaintiff; and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 1 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 4. This litigation arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on April 29, 2022, at or about the intersection of Hempstead Avenue and Cedar Avenue in Rockville Centre, County of Nassau, New York. Plaintiff is alleging that due to the defendants’ negligence in the ownership, operation, maintenance and control of their motor vehicle, the defendants’ vehicle came into contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle causing the accident and resulting injuries. (See Summons and Complaint - NYSCEF Doc #1). Procedural History 5. Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing and service of a Summons and Complaint dated May 12, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc #1). Issue was joined on behalf of the defendants, RVC and MICHAEL E. OSWALD by the filing/service of an Answer with demands on June 23, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc #5). A Preliminary Conference was held, and a Preliminary Conference Order was issued that setting forth the schedule for discovery in this matter. (NYSCEF Doc #14). 6. To date, no party depositions have been held, including plaintiffs. Factual History 7. Plaintiff appeared for a GML §50-h Claim Hearing on November 1, 2022. (A copy of the plaintiff’s transcript of testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiff testified that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 29, 2022 while driving a 2013 BMW X6. (pg. 9-10, lines 15-12). He testified to dropping his friend off two blocks off from Hempstead Avenue and proceeding back towards Hempstead Avenue on Cedar Avenue. (pg. 15, lines 4-9). He stated he had to stop at two (2) STOP signs when proceeding back and the last STOP sign he was stopped at was on Cedar Avenue. (id. at pg. 15, lines 10-21). When asked how long he had been stopped on the 2 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 STOP sign at Cedar Avenue before the accident, the plaintiff testified he was stopped for 30 minutes. (id. at pgs. 15-16, lines 22-3). When asked again for clarification on how long he had been stopped on Cedar Avenue, he again testified that it was 30 minutes. (id. at pg. 16, lines 4-15). Plaintiff then testified that he was stopped “way in front of the STOP sign” when asked about his positioning at the STOP sign. (id. at pg. 16, lines 16-19). When asked to clarify his testimony, he again testified that he was in fact in front of the STOP sign. (id. at pg. 16, lines 20-21). Plaintiff was then asked a third time where his vehicle was stopped at the STOP sign with plaintiff now testifying that it was stopped behind the STOP sign where the STOP sign was located. (id. at pg. 17, lines 11-16). He testified that he was stopped to the right on Cedar Avenue about three feet away from the curb. (id. at pg. 18, lines 5-12). 8. Attached in support of plaintiff’s motion papers is an Affidavit from ROBIN ELLIS dated October 26, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc #20). In his Affidavit, Mr. ELLIS attested that his vehicle was stopped for a STOP sign while heading westbound on Cedar Avenue at its intersection with Hempstead Avenue. (id.). He attested that he was stopped at the STOP sign for approximately thirty seconds with his vehicle’s right turn signal illuminated and intended to make a right turn onto Hempstead Avenue. (id.). He further attested that his vehicle was fully stopped, his foot on the brake, and both brake and brake lights as operational. (id.) 9. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, attached is an Affidavit from the driver/defendant MICHAEL E. OSWALD. (Exhibit B). Mr. OSWALD attests that on April 29, 2022, he was driving a 21-passenger handicap bus owned by RVC and was travelling northbound on Hempstead Avenue. (id.). He attested that when 3 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 he reached the intersection of Cedar Avenue, he wanted to make a right turn. (id.). He attested that prior to making the turn, he did not see any vehicles approaching Cedar Avenue. He looked back to make sure he cleared the curb and street sign on the corner and when he turned back and looked ahead, plaintiff’s car was there in the middle of the roadway, not off to the side near the curb on the right by the STOP sign. (id.). (Emphasis added.). The point of impact between the two vehicles was in the middle of the roadway with plaintiff’s vehicle only being moved by police to the curb once they arrived at the scene of the accident. (id.). He further attested that plaintiff’s vehicle had not come to a complete stop just prior to the impact. (id.). (Emphasis added.). 11. Attached is a certified copy of the police accident report, as Exhibit C. The police report itself includes a statement from the plaintiff stating he was driving westbound on Cedar Avenue and slowing down while approaching the STOP sign when defendant’s vehicle made a wide turn onto Cedar Avenue and collided with the front of his vehicle. (id.). (Emphasis added.). Argument 12. Based on the GML §50-h testimony, certified police report, and the Affidavits of both plaintiff and defendant, the record is clear that there exists clear disputed issues of material facts. In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish its cause sufficiently to allow the court to direct judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins., Co., 70 NY2d 966, 525 NYS2d 793 (1988). This the movant must do by the tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form. Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 (1980). The drastic remedy of summary judgment, therefore, is only appropriate where a thorough examination of the merits clearly 4 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 demonstrates the absence of any issue of fact. Vamattam v Thomas, 205 AD2d 615, 613 NYS2d 220 2d Dept (1994). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must accept the pleadings as true, and view the facts in a light most favorable to the one opposing the motion. (Lemonda v Sutton, 268 AD2d 383, 702 NYS2d 275 [1st Dept 2000]). (Emphasis added.). The parties’ competing contentions must be viewed in a manner most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v Dino & Artie’s Automotive Transmission Co., 168 AD2d 610, 563 NYS2d 449 [2d Dept 1990]). 13. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the issue is not whether the proponent of the motion can ultimately prevail, but whether there exists a substantial issue of fact regarding liability that requires a plenary trial. Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d 247 (1980). Thus, “the court’s role is limited to issue finding, not issue resolving.” Amatulli v. Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532 (1991). 14. Here, the evidence submitted by both parties present conflicting versions of the events that occurred on April 29, 2022. There are various material facts that are in dispute including whether the plaintiff’s (ELLIS) vehicle had come to a complete stop or was at a complete stop at the time of the accident. Another material fact in dispute is the location of plaintiff’s vehicle just prior to the impact as the Affidavit of Mr. OSWALD clearly attests that the point of impact of the collision was in the middle of the roadway on Cedar Avenue and not by the STOP sign on the right by the curb. (Exhibit B). The plaintiff states in his Affidavit that he was stopped at the STOP sign for approximately 30 seconds while Mr. OSWALD’s Affidavit clearly states that he observed no vehicles just prior to making his turn. 5 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 15. Plaintiff also could not have been stopped on Cedar Avenue for 30 or so seconds prior to the collision according to the certified police report as the plaintiff stated he was driving westbound on Cedar Avenue and slowing down while approaching the STOP sign when the collision happened. (Exhibit C). 16. Attorney Sawicki’s Affirmation states that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1160(a) but fails to consider that plaintiff’s vehicle was in the middle of the roadway, making it impractical for any size vehicle to make a right turn. 17. Plaintiff further states that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1180(a) and §1212 but does not allege or provide any sort of evidence that could account for the speed of defendant’s vehicle or the nature of defendant’s driving prior to the collision. 18. Plaintiff does not provide any substance to any of the claims for violations of Vehicle and Traffic laws other than stating that such statutes were violated. Plaintiff has thus unequivocally failed to meet his burden of showing prima facie negligence by the defendant to have the burden shift to defendant to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident. Plaintiff’s own GML §50-h testimony leaves material questions of facts in dispute including but not limited to: where exactly the accident occurred; how the accident occurred; the location of the vehicles prior to the impact; whether any vehicles took mitigating steps to avoid the collision; and whether plaintiff’s vehicle had come to a complete stop prior to the accident. 19. Furthermore, it should be noted that depositions have yet to be held in this matter. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion must be denied as premature. Pursuant to Smith v. New York, 133 AD2d 818 (2d Dept 1987), a motion for summary judgment was denied 6 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 when "facts essential to justify opposition to the motion may exist but cannot be stated at this time as they are within the exclusive knowledge of” a party that had yet to be deposed. Here, depositions are critical to ascertain precisely how the accident occurred. This claim is not based on “mere hope and speculation” as evident by the evidence noted above that presents clear triable issues of material facts. Party depositions are also critical in determining the extent of culpable conduct/contributory negligence of the plaintiff as well as proper use of seatbelt during the time of the accident. As such, plaintiff’s assertion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses is also premature. Defendants must be permitted to depose the plaintiff in this case prior to any summary judgment motion being heard. A self-serving Affidavit is submitted by plaintiff, leaving the defendants with no opportunity to question the plaintiff as to any element of said Affidavit. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully reequsted that this Court issue an Order, pursuant to CPLR §3212, denying the plaintiff’s motion for an Order (1) pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability; (2) striking the defendants’ second affirmative defense of failure to use seatbelts; (3) striking defendants’ third affirmative defense of culpable conduct/contributory negligence of plaintiff; and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: Syosset, New York December 26, 2023 Syed T. Hasan SYED T. HASAN 7 of 8 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2023 11:03 AM INDEX NO. 607676/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2023 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that the foregoing Affirmation in Opposition was prepared using a proportionally spaced typeface, as follows: NAME OF TYPEFACE: Arial POINT SIZE: 12 LINE SPACING: Double WORD COUNT: 1968 The total number of words in the Affirmation in Opposition are in full compliance with Rule 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court. Dated: Syosset, New York December 26, 2023 Syed T. Hasan SYED T. HASAN 8 of 8