Nahrebeski v. Molnar

286 A.D.2d 891, 730 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8894
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 28, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 891 (Nahrebeski v. Molnar) 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
Nahrebeski v. Molnar, 286 A.D.2d 891, 730 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) seeking dismissal of each defendant’s affirmative defense of contributory negligence. Plaintiff failed to support his motion “with an affidavit by one with personal knowledge of the facts or other evidentiary proof’ (Arriaga v Laub Co., 233 AD2d 244). The vehicle accident report and police reports submitted by plaintiff constitute inadmissible hearsay and thus fail to establish the manner in which the accident occurred (see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Island Transp. Corp., 233 AD2d 157, 157-158). The court also properly denied that part of plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) seeking dismissal of each defendant’s affirmative defense of failure to wear a seat belt. Although plaintiff met his initial burden by challenging the factual basis for that affirmative defense, defendants submitted evidence raising an issue of fact whether plaintiff was properly wearing the seat belt at the time of the accident. “If there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed” (Warwick v Cruz, 270 AD2d 255). Plaintiffs CPLR 3211 (b) motion was directed only at those two affirmative defenses. Thus, contrary to the further contention of plaintiff, the court did not err in failing to dismiss each defendant’s affirmative defense based on CPLR article 16.

Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the cross motion of defendants Michael A. Molnar and Leaseway Dedicated Logistics seeking leave to amend their answer to assert the emergency doctrine defense (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). “Leave to amend a pleading should be [892]*892freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit” (Letterman v Reddington, 278 AD2d 868). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Marshall v. State of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 51390(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2025)
Matter of Falck
2024 NY Slip Op 05924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Places in Saratoga, LLC v. Izzo
2024 NY Slip Op 32940(U) (New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County, 2024)
Uhteg v. Kendra
2021 NY Slip Op 07408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Doe v. Intercontinental Hotels Group, PLC
2021 NY Slip Op 02063 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
BROYLES, CHRISTINA J. v. TOWN OF EVANS
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Broyles v. Town of Evans
147 A.D.3d 1496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
WEISER, ALEXANDER G. v. WILBER, MARYCLAIRE P.
136 A.D.3d 1389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
STOPANI, MICHAEL v. ALLEGANY CO-OP INSURANCE CO.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Stopani v. Allegany Co-op Insurance
83 A.D.3d 1446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Liskiewicz v. Hameister
29 Misc. 3d 348 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Ring v. Arts International, Inc.
7 Misc. 3d 869 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2004)
Regan v. Ancoma, Inc.
11 A.D.3d 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
MS Partnership v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2 A.D.3d 1482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Thompson v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
303 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Russo v. Clinton Disposal Service, Inc.
295 A.D.2d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Nizam v. Friol
294 A.D.2d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 A.D.2d 891, 730 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nahrebeski-v-molnar-nyappdiv-2001.