Meusa v. Schlossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meusa v. Schlossman

120 A.D.3d 1205, 991 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

Docket2013-11038

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1205 (Meusa v. Schlossman) 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

Meusa v. Schlossman, 120 A.D.3d 1205, 991 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated October 18, 2013, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*1206 The defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence she submitted in support of her motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether her vehicle was the one that struck the plaintiff while he was lawfully in a crosswalk at the intersection of West 40th Street and Seventh Avenue in Manhattan on July 15, 2011, and then left the scene (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Since the defendant failed to sustain her prima facie burden, we need not consider the adequacy of the plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated October 18, 2013, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*1206 The defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence she submitted in support of her motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether her vehicle was the one that struck the plaintiff while he was lawfully in a crosswalk at the intersection of West 40th Street and Seventh Avenue in Manhattan on July 15, 2011, and then left the scene (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Since the defendant failed to sustain her prima facie burden, we need not consider the adequacy of the plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1205, 991 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meusa-v-schlossman-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack