Bykov v. Brody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bykov v. Brody

2017 NY Slip Op 3723, 150 A.D.3d 808, 51 N.Y.S.3d 900

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

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket2016-04605

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3723 (Bykov v. Brody) 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

Bykov v. Brody, 2017 NY Slip Op 3723, 150 A.D.3d 808, 51 N.Y.S.3d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Sylvia Brody appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (King, J.), dated March 17, 2016, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

*809 Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence that the defendant Sylvia Brody (hereinafter the defendant) submitted in support of her summary judgment motion, which included her own affidavit and the affidavit of her husband, Joseph Brody, as well as the transcript of the deposition of the plaintiff Igor Bykov, was insufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “Resolving questions of credibility, determining the accuracy of witnesses, and reconciling the testimony of witnesses are for the trier of fact” (Kahan v Spira, 88 AD3d 964, 966 [2011]; see Lewanoni v Liotine, 125 AD3d 941 [2015]).

In light of the defendant’s failure to meet her prima facie burden, her motion was properly denied without consideration of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, 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 defendant Sylvia Brody appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (King, J.), dated March 17, 2016, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

*809 Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence that the defendant Sylvia Brody (hereinafter the defendant) submitted in support of her summary judgment motion, which included her own affidavit and the affidavit of her husband, Joseph Brody, as well as the transcript of the deposition of the plaintiff Igor Bykov, was insufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “Resolving questions of credibility, determining the accuracy of witnesses, and reconciling the testimony of witnesses are for the trier of fact” (Kahan v Spira, 88 AD3d 964, 966 [2011]; see Lewanoni v Liotine, 125 AD3d 941 [2015]).

In light of the defendant’s failure to meet her prima facie burden, her motion was properly denied without consideration of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3723, 150 A.D.3d 808, 51 N.Y.S.3d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bykov-v-brody-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack