Lieberman v. Goldhagen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieberman v. Goldhagen

38 A.D.3d 615, 831 N.Y.S.2d 525

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 615 (Lieberman v. Goldhagen) 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

Lieberman v. Goldhagen, 38 A.D.3d 615, 831 N.Y.S.2d 525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[616]*616Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Here, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant Matthew Goldhagen was negligent in operating the vehicle registered to the defendant Susan Goldhagen and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see generally Cucci v Cucci, 31 AD3d 598 [2006]). Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers need not be considered (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Dillon and Garni, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[616]*616Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Here, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant Matthew Goldhagen was negligent in operating the vehicle registered to the defendant Susan Goldhagen and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see generally Cucci v Cucci, 31 AD3d 598 [2006]). Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers need not be considered (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 615, 831 N.Y.S.2d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-goldhagen-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack