Paulin v. Needham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paulin v. Needham

28 A.D.3d 531, 812 N.Y.S.2d 658

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 2006·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated November 17, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

It is fundamental that “summary judgment should only be granted where there are no material and triable issues of fact” (Stretch v Tedesco, 263 AD2d 538 [1999]; see Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361 [1974]) and that “issue finding, as opposed to issue determination, is the key to summary judgment” (Stretch v Tedesco, supra at 539; see Judice v DeAngelo, 272 AD2d 583 [2000]).

The Supreme Court erred in granting the motion since the [532] defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver exercised due care to avoid the subject accident under the circumstances that existed at the time the accident occurred (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Gecaj v DiFiglio, 303 AD2d 548 [2003]; cf. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146; Kiernan v Hendrick, 116 AD2d 779 [1986]). In light of the defendants’ failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Gecaj v DiFiglio, supra). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Covello, 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, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated November 17, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

It is fundamental that “summary judgment should only be granted where there are no material and triable issues of fact” (Stretch v Tedesco, 263 AD2d 538 [1999]; see Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361 [1974]) and that “issue finding, as opposed to issue determination, is the key to summary judgment” (Stretch v Tedesco, supra at 539; see Judice v DeAngelo, 272 AD2d 583 [2000]).

The Supreme Court erred in granting the motion since the [532] defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver exercised due care to avoid the subject accident under the circumstances that existed at the time the accident occurred (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Gecaj v DiFiglio, 303 AD2d 548 [2003]; cf. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146; Kiernan v Hendrick, 116 AD2d 779 [1986]). In light of the defendants’ failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Gecaj v DiFiglio, supra). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Paulin v. Needham, 28 A.D.3d 531, 812 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

28 A.D.3d 531 (Paulin v. Needham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related