Broer v. Smith

240 A.D.2d 528, 658 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 528 (Broer v. Smith) 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
Broer v. Smith, 240 A.D.2d 528, 658 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated September 27, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s present contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial [529]*529summary judgment. The minutes of the defendant’s plea of guilty in a criminal prosecution arising from the same incident as this civil lawsuit, as amplified and explained by the defendant’s subsequent deposition testimony, precluded the defendant from contesting civil liability for recklessly and negligently knocking down the injured plaintiff (see, Grayes v DiStasio, 166 AD2d 261; Bergen v Shapiro, 129 AD2d 669). The defendant came forward with no evidence to support his conclusory claim that the injured plaintiff was partially responsible for his own injuries (cf., Jordan v Britton, 128 AD2d 315).

Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ application did not violate the general proscription against making successive motions for summary judgment in the same action (see generally, Taylor v Brooklyn Hosp., 187 AD2d 714; La Freniere v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 105 AD2d 517; Graney Dev. Corp. v Taksen, 62 AD2d 1148), since the application was based upon new information obtained during disclosure and was invited by the court (see, Schriptek Mktg. v Columbus McKinnon Corp., 187 AD2d 800; Beagan v Manhattanville Nursing Care Ctr., 176 AD2d 633). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mendez v. Queens Plumbing Supply, Inc.
12 Misc. 3d 1064 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Hirschfeld v. Carpinello
12 Misc. 3d 749 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Olsson v. MacDonald
16 A.D.3d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Salzinger v. Weinstock Bros.
284 A.D.2d 387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Estate of Macaro
182 Misc. 2d 625 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1999)
Zinger v. Terrell
985 S.W.2d 737 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1999)
Deterling v. Cattie
22 F. Supp. 2d 91 (S.D. New York, 1998)
In re the Estate of Savage
175 Misc. 2d 880 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 528, 658 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broer-v-smith-nyappdiv-1997.