Fernandez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fernandez v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 71, 707 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921

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

DecidedMay 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 71 (Fernandez v. City of New York) 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

Fernandez v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 71, 707 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1999, which, in this negligence action to recover for personal injuries, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant-appellant Benny’s Express, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant-appellant, in response to plaintiffs prima facie showing that his injuries were caused by the negligent operation of a “hi-lo” vehicle by defendant’s employee, failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to its liability. Indeed, defendant-appellant’s sole submission in opposition to plaintiffs summary judgment motion was an affirmation by its attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts. Accordingly, plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant-appellant was properly granted (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1999, which, in this negligence action to recover for personal injuries, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant-appellant Benny’s Express, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant-appellant, in response to plaintiffs prima facie showing that his injuries were caused by the negligent operation of a “hi-lo” vehicle by defendant’s employee, failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to its liability. Indeed, defendant-appellant’s sole submission in opposition to plaintiffs summary judgment motion was an affirmation by its attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts. Accordingly, plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant-appellant was properly granted (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 71, 707 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack