In Lopez v. WS Distribution, Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 825 N.Y.S.2d 516 (2d Dept 2006), the court upheld the motion court's award of summary judgment to the plaintiff who established that he had been struck by a forklift driven in reverse by the defendant's employee. The facts here are essentially the same. Having turned the forklift's steering wheel to the right while in close proximity to plaintiff on his left, and notwithstanding the space between the trucks and his knowledge of the tail swing, Stavola thereby created a danger like that created when one backs up a vehicle without looking behind. Stavola also had reason to know, having assisted in installing two plows that day, that plaintiff was focused on installing a pin into the plow. Lopez is instructive because there, based on the failure of the forklift driver to say where he was looking before striking the plaintiff or whether he saw the plaintiff and, if so, why he could not avoid striking him, the court would not consider his testimony that the plaintiff had walked behind the forklift, thereby causing the accident. (34 AD3d at 760).