DeProssino v. Noorzad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeProssino v. Noorzad

225 A.D.2d 581, 638 N.Y.2d 782, 638 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2183

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 581 (DeProssino v. Noorzad) 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

DeProssino v. Noorzad, 225 A.D.2d 581, 638 N.Y.2d 782, 638 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The documents submitted by the plaintiff in support of her motion, including, among other things, the statement of the defendant Bashira A. Noorzad dated February 6, 1991, indicated that the vehicle operated by the defendant Bashira A. Noorzad and owned by the defendant Abdullah Q. Rouzyi struck the plaintiff’s decedent while he was lawfully crossing the street. These submissions made out a prima facie case that the negligence of the defendant Noorzad in operating his vehicle caused the accident.

The statement signed by the vehicle’s owner, the defendant Rouyzi, that he had loaned the vehicle to Noorzad made out a prima facie case that he was liable (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [1]).

The only statement submitted by either defendant in opposition to the motion, the unsworn statement which the defendant Noorzad gave to Gerard O’Sullivan, did not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form and thus was insufficient to defeat' the motion (see, Hagan v General Motors Corp., 194 AD2d 766). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

The documents submitted by the plaintiff in support of her motion, including, among other things, the statement of the defendant Bashira A. Noorzad dated February 6, 1991, indicated that the vehicle operated by the defendant Bashira A. Noorzad and owned by the defendant Abdullah Q. Rouzyi struck the plaintiff’s decedent while he was lawfully crossing the street. These submissions made out a prima facie case that the negligence of the defendant Noorzad in operating his vehicle caused the accident.

The statement signed by the vehicle’s owner, the defendant Rouyzi, that he had loaned the vehicle to Noorzad made out a prima facie case that he was liable (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [1]).

The only statement submitted by either defendant in opposition to the motion, the unsworn statement which the defendant Noorzad gave to Gerard O’Sullivan, did not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form and thus was insufficient to defeat' the motion (see, Hagan v General Motors Corp., 194 AD2d 766). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 581, 638 N.Y.2d 782, 638 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deprossino-v-noorzad-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack