Pantojas v. Niang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pantojas v. Niang

122 A.D.3d 524, 998 N.Y.S.2d 10

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2014

Docket13578 303460/10

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.3d 524 (Pantojas v. Niang) 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

Pantojas v. Niang, 122 A.D.3d 524, 998 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered September 16, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The motion for summary judgment should have been denied, as defendant made the motion more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed, and he failed to show good cause for doing so (CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). In any event, defendant failed to establish prima facie *525 that he was not the owner of the vehicle that struck plaintiffs car, as the DMV abstract of registration shows that he had been issued license plates with the number that plaintiff alleged was on the plates on the vehicle that struck him, and the abstract shows that defendant did not surrender those plates until after the accident (see Phoenix Ins. Co. v Guthiel, 2 NY2d 584, 587-588 [1957]; Morgan v Termine, 2 Misc. 2d 109 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1956]). Nor did the declaration sheet for insurance coverage establish as a matter of law that defendant did not own the vehicle that struck plaintiffs car.

Concur — Renwick, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered September 16, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The motion for summary judgment should have been denied, as defendant made the motion more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed, and he failed to show good cause for doing so (CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). In any event, defendant failed to establish prima facie *525 that he was not the owner of the vehicle that struck plaintiffs car, as the DMV abstract of registration shows that he had been issued license plates with the number that plaintiff alleged was on the plates on the vehicle that struck him, and the abstract shows that defendant did not surrender those plates until after the accident (see Phoenix Ins. Co. v Guthiel, 2 NY2d 584, 587-588 [1957]; Morgan v Termine, 2 Misc. 2d 109 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1956]). Nor did the declaration sheet for insurance coverage establish as a matter of law that defendant did not own the vehicle that struck plaintiffs car.

Concur — Renwick, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 524, 998 N.Y.S.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pantojas-v-niang-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack