Berrian v. Siena College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berrian v. Siena College

129 A.D.3d 1004, 12 N.Y.S.3d 240

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 2015

Docket2013-10601

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1004 (Berrian v. Siena College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berrian v. Siena College, 129 A.D.3d 1004, 12 N.Y.S.3d 240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated September 20, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s daughter, who was 20 years old when this action was commenced, allegedly sustained personal injuries while she was a student at the defendant Siena College. The plaintiff, acting under authority of a power of attorney signed by her and her daughter, commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for those injuries. The defendant asserted in its answer that the plaintiff lacked authority to bring the action. After discovery was completed, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the power of attorney was not valid because it did not comply with the requirements of General Obligations Law § 5-1501B (1) (d).

Statutory short form powers of attorney and nonstatutory *1005 powers of attorney must contain certain “exact wording” in order “to be valid” (General Obligations Law § 5-1501B; see General Obligations Law § 5-1513 [1] [a], [n]), absent circumstances not relevant here (see General Obligations Law § 5-1512). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the power of attorney signed by the plaintiff and her daughter omitted language mandated by the statute. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. As the Supreme Court correctly held, the power of attorney was not valid in the absence of the required language. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this action (cf. Sharrow v Sheridan, 91 AD3d 940, 941 [2012]; Ferry v Ferry, 13 AD3d 765, 766 [2004]).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated September 20, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s daughter, who was 20 years old when this action was commenced, allegedly sustained personal injuries while she was a student at the defendant Siena College. The plaintiff, acting under authority of a power of attorney signed by her and her daughter, commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for those injuries. The defendant asserted in its answer that the plaintiff lacked authority to bring the action. After discovery was completed, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the power of attorney was not valid because it did not comply with the requirements of General Obligations Law § 5-1501B (1) (d).

Statutory short form powers of attorney and nonstatutory *1005 powers of attorney must contain certain “exact wording” in order “to be valid” (General Obligations Law § 5-1501B; see General Obligations Law § 5-1513 [1] [a], [n]), absent circumstances not relevant here (see General Obligations Law § 5-1512). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the power of attorney signed by the plaintiff and her daughter omitted language mandated by the statute. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. As the Supreme Court correctly held, the power of attorney was not valid in the absence of the required language. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this action (cf. Sharrow v Sheridan, 91 AD3d 940, 941 [2012]; Ferry v Ferry, 13 AD3d 765, 766 [2004]).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 1004, 12 N.Y.S.3d 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berrian-v-siena-college-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack