Nationwide Property Casualty v. Nestor

6 A.D.3d 409, 774 N.Y.S.2d 357
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 5, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 409 (Nationwide Property Casualty v. Nestor) 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
Nationwide Property Casualty v. Nestor, 6 A.D.3d 409, 774 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid to the plaintiffs insured, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated January 6, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Nationwide Property Casualty, the insurer of the subject apartment building owned by Stella Troíanos and Evagelos Troianos, commenced this subrogation action seeking [410]*410recovery of insurance benefits it paid them for property damage that occurred to the apartment as the result of a fire that started in the defendant tenant’s apartment on April 14, 1997.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant failed to sustain his burden in the first instance of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). This burden cannot be satisfied merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiffs case, as the defendant did here (see Katz v Pro Form Fitness, 3 AD3d 474 [2004]; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531, 532 [2003]; Dalton v Educational Testing Serv., 294 AD2d 462, 463 [2002]). Since the defendant failed to satisfy his burden as the party moving for summary judgment, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Healy v. Damus
88 A.D.3d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Valdez v. Aramark Services, Inc.
23 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Corrigan v. Spring Lake Building Corp.
23 A.D.3d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Xu v. 688 Sixth Avenue Realty Co.
19 A.D.3d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 A.D.3d 409, 774 N.Y.S.2d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationwide-property-casualty-v-nestor-nyappdiv-2004.