Allstate Ins. Co. v. One Ten Auto Repair Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Ins. Co. v. One Ten Auto Repair Corp.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 12, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50724(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Allstate Ins. Co. v. One Ten Auto Repair Corp. (Allstate Ins. Co. v. One Ten Auto Repair Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allstate Ins. Co. v. One Ten Auto Repair Corp., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Allstate Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Sang Park, Respondent,

against

One Ten Auto Repair Corp., Appellant.

One Ten Auto Repair Corp., appellant pro se. Karen Lawrence, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered October 20, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, as subrogee of Sang Park (Park), commenced this action in December of 2016 to recover the principal sum $13,995.14, representing the damage sustained to Park's vehicle at defendant's repair shop on June 24, 2016. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the damage to Park's vehicle had not been caused by defendant's employees, but instead by plaintiff's authorized agent and inspector, who had been sent by plaintiff to defendant's shop to evaluate the damage to Park's car sustained in a previous motor vehicle accident. Defendant submitted affidavits of its owner and employee, who averred that Park's vehicle had been raised on a lift for repair and that plaintiff's agent was the only one near Park's vehicle when it fell off the lift. While neither averred in their affidavits that they had witnessed the car falling from the lift, they asserted that plaintiff's agent had to have mishandled the lift. Plaintiff's counsel opposed the motion, stating that defendant had failed to submit an affidavit of its mechanic who had placed Park's vehicle on the lift, that the allegation that plaintiff's agent mishandled the lift is just an assumption, and that defendant had failed to show that it was free from negligence. By order entered October 20, 2017, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion.

While defendant attempted to show that the accident was solely caused by plaintiff's agent's negligence, such assertion was based purely on speculation, as it was not supported by [*2]anyone with personal knowledge. As defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it was free from negligence, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 12, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allstate Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Sang Park, Respondent,

against

One Ten Auto Repair Corp., Appellant.

One Ten Auto Repair Corp., appellant pro se. Karen Lawrence, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered October 20, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, as subrogee of Sang Park (Park), commenced this action in December of 2016 to recover the principal sum $13,995.14, representing the damage sustained to Park's vehicle at defendant's repair shop on June 24, 2016. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the damage to Park's vehicle had not been caused by defendant's employees, but instead by plaintiff's authorized agent and inspector, who had been sent by plaintiff to defendant's shop to evaluate the damage to Park's car sustained in a previous motor vehicle accident. Defendant submitted affidavits of its owner and employee, who averred that Park's vehicle had been raised on a lift for repair and that plaintiff's agent was the only one near Park's vehicle when it fell off the lift. While neither averred in their affidavits that they had witnessed the car falling from the lift, they asserted that plaintiff's agent had to have mishandled the lift. Plaintiff's counsel opposed the motion, stating that defendant had failed to submit an affidavit of its mechanic who had placed Park's vehicle on the lift, that the allegation that plaintiff's agent mishandled the lift is just an assumption, and that defendant had failed to show that it was free from negligence. By order entered October 20, 2017, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion.

While defendant attempted to show that the accident was solely caused by plaintiff's agent's negligence, such assertion was based purely on speculation, as it was not supported by [*2]anyone with personal knowledge. As defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it was free from negligence, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 12, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allstate Ins. Co. v. One Ten Auto Repair Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-ins-co-v-one-ten-auto-repair-corp-nyappterm-2020.