Justice Carol Robinson Edmead

Pedestrian Reed moved for summary judgment against bicyclist Male, arguing Male was negligent for traveling in the wrong direction in a bicycle lane, in this personal injury action. Reed claimed Male violated the Vehicle and Traffic law rendering him negligent per se, arguing Male’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident as Reed looked in both directions before crossing the street on a green light. Male contended he could not be held liable as Reed was comparatively negligent crossing on a “solid orange” signal. The court found Reed demonstrated that Male was negligent in operating his bicycle by riding it in the wrong direction on a one-way street, in violation of the VTL, while Reed was crossing the street within the crosswalk with the light in her favor. But it denied Reed’s motion for summary judgment against Male, noting he raised a triable issue regarding Reed’s comparative negligence. The court found Reed’s assertion she looked both ways before crossing was controverted by Male’s testimony that at the time of the incident the signal was “solid orange” for pedestrians. While Reed’s comparative negligence may be found to be minimal, or non-existent, the record did not support a finding of a total absence of it.