The following papers having been read on this motion: Notice of Motion and Affidavits _X_ Affirmations in Opposition _X_ Reply Affirmation _N/A_ The plaintiff moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting her partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants each submit opposition. The plaintiff avers that she was stopped at the intersection of New Highway and Gazza Boulevard on October 23, 2018, when her vehicle was struck by Ms. Kaul’s vehicle. The parties’ deposition testimony demonstrates that Ms. Kaul’s vehicle initially collided with Ms. Wynn’s vehicle as Ms. Wynn attempted to make a left turn, causing Ms. Kaul’s vehicle to collide with plaintiff’s vehicle on the opposite side of the road. In their respective opposition papers, Ms. Kaul argues that Ms. Wynn was at fault for failing to yield before turning, while Ms. Wynn argues that Ms. Kaul was at fault for driving over the speed limit such that Ms. Wynn was unable to complete her turn. The instant determination appears to be a matter of first impression. Here, both defendant drivers maintain that they are free from fault, but neither driver suggests that the injured plaintiff bore any fault in the happening of the subject accident. In similar circumstances in the past, where a plaintiff has shown freedom from liability but the issue of apportioning fault between defendants remains, Courts have denied the summary judgment motion, while stating that plaintiff was free from any responsibility for the accident (see CPLR 3212[g]; see also Phillip v. D&D Carting Co., Inc., 136 A.D.3d 18). This Court finds that such an approach would be unduly burdensome and unfair to the plaintiff here. More recently, it was decided that plaintiffs are no longer required to demonstrate the absence of their own comparative fault to meet their burden for summary judgment (see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312). Upon the foregoing, this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the instant matter shall proceed to a trial on the issue of damages. At the trial, each defendant will be afforded the opportunity to apportion responsibility for the subject accident, if any, among them. This Court finds that, where the only issue is apportioning fault between two defendant drivers, such an approach is consistent with the line of thinking in Rodriguez, supra, and would best serve the interests of judicial economy. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted, and it is further ORDERED that, at the damages trial, the defendants shall have the opportunity to apportion their respective responsibility for damages, if any. Dated: May 6, 2020
