Fernandez v. Jeune

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fernandez v. Jeune

76 A.D.2d 537, 905 N.Y.S.2d 517

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

DecidedAugust 10, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 537 (Fernandez v. Jeune) 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. Jeune, 76 A.D.2d 537, 905 N.Y.S.2d 517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Luz Martinez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated March 24, 2009, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff-respondent and the defendants-respondents Paul Essai and Marcaisse Cherident appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendant Luz Martinez failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see [538]*538Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether Martinez was negligent in failing to remove her vehicle from a dangerous place and, if so, whether her negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Eltahan v Rejouis, 7 AD3d 660, 661 [2004]; O’Sullivan v Minjae Kim, 293 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]). The failure to make a prima facie showing eliminating those issues of fact required the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Martinez’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Roman, 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 Luz Martinez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated March 24, 2009, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff-respondent and the defendants-respondents Paul Essai and Marcaisse Cherident appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendant Luz Martinez failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see [538]*538Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether Martinez was negligent in failing to remove her vehicle from a dangerous place and, if so, whether her negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Eltahan v Rejouis, 7 AD3d 660, 661 [2004]; O’Sullivan v Minjae Kim, 293 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]). The failure to make a prima facie showing eliminating those issues of fact required the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Martinez’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 537, 905 N.Y.S.2d 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-jeune-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack