Martino v. Brinzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martino v. Brinzo

63 A.D.3d 1014, 880 N.Y.S.2d 550

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1014 (Martino v. Brinzo) 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

Martino v. Brinzo, 63 A.D.3d 1014, 880 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated January 27, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs assertions, the proof submitted on the motion did not establish that the subject accident involved a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle. The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability. “Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Simplex Grinnell, LP v Ruby Weston Manor, 59 AD3d 610 [2009]; Smalls v Mercy Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d [1015]*1015670 [2008]; Greenstein v R & R of G.C., Inc., 50 AD3d 637 [2008]). The Supreme Court therefore properly denied his motion for summary judgment with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, 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, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated January 27, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs assertions, the proof submitted on the motion did not establish that the subject accident involved a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle. The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability. “Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Simplex Grinnell, LP v Ruby Weston Manor, 59 AD3d 610 [2009]; Smalls v Mercy Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d [1015]*1015670 [2008]; Greenstein v R & R of G.C., Inc., 50 AD3d 637 [2008]). The Supreme Court therefore properly denied his motion for summary judgment with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1014, 880 N.Y.S.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martino-v-brinzo-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack