Plaintiffs motion, which contends that she was crossing in the pedestrian crosswalk, with the crossing light, when defendant’s vehicle struck her, has made out a prima facie case of negligence. Plaintiffs motion further establishes that she was not distracted while crossing the street, looked for cars before crossing, and was otherwise free from comparative negligence. Thus, the burden shifts to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact. See Wine grad v New York
University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985); see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 (1980). Here, defendant proffers only an attorney’s affirmation in opposition. The Court of Appeals has made clear that bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine, bona fide issues of fact necessary to defeat a motion for summary judgment.