Komlan v. Belisle

Komlan v Belisle 2026 NY Slip Op 05729 October 6, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Anede Komlan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Javier Belisle et al., Defendants-Respondents. Decided and Entered: October 06, 2026 Index No. 150714/23|Appeal No. 7128|Case No. 2025-05881| Before: Mendez, J.P., Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, JJ. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant. Anna J. Ervolina, MTA Law Department, Brooklyn (Jeremy Pepper of counsel), for respondents. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Tsai, J.), entered August 20, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendants Javier Belisle and New York City Transit Authority, and for summary judgment dismissing defendants' comparative negligence affirmative defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff's motion was not premature because information as to how the accident occurred is within defendants' own knowledge (see Baxter v Gosh, 241 AD3d 1144, 1145 [1st Dept 2025]). Nor is the lack of depositions, without more, sufficient justification for denying a summary judgment motion as premature (see id.; see also Saquicela-Villa v City of New York, 247 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2026]). Nevertheless, plaintiff failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff alleges that while he was riding his electric bike a bus owned and operated by defendants swerved into his lane, knocking him off his bike. Plaintiff submitted a surveillance video in support of his motion for summary judgment. "Although video evidence may be sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact, the surveillance video submitted by [plaintiff] is not dispositive of [his] claims. . . . [T]he accident is not clearly depicted, and the video does not, as [plaintiff] argues, irrefutably demonstrate" defendants' negligence (Miranda-Lopez v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 AD3d 431, 431-432 [1st Dept 2019]). Plaintiff's motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of defendants' papers in opposition because he failed to establish a prima facie case (see Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060, 1063 [2016]). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 6, 2026