Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff relied on his own deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of the defendant. Although the parties provided conflicting testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident, under either version of the accident, the defendant's negligence in the operation of his vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Clarke v Phillips, 112 A.D.3d 872, 873-874 ; Gibson v Levine, 95 A.D.3d 1071, 1072 ; Giangrasso v Callahan, 87 A.D.3d 521, 522 ). Accordingly, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 ). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.