Pavlounis v. Ashman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pavlounis v. Ashman

269 A.D.2d 510, 704 N.Y.S.2d 504, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1983

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 510 (Pavlounis v. Ashman) 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

Pavlounis v. Ashman, 269 A.D.2d 510, 704 N.Y.S.2d 504, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated April 28, 1999, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that she had no involvement with the alleged accident. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which would require a trial of the action (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 334). The plaintiff failed to meet his burden. His speculative assertions were insufficient to show the existence of a bona fide issue of fact (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231). Thus, the court erred in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment.

In view of the above disposition, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining arguments. Santucci, J. P., Joy, S. Miller and H. 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, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated April 28, 1999, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that she had no involvement with the alleged accident. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which would require a trial of the action (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 334). The plaintiff failed to meet his burden. His speculative assertions were insufficient to show the existence of a bona fide issue of fact (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231). Thus, the court erred in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment.

In view of the above disposition, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining arguments. Santucci, J. P., Joy, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 510, 704 N.Y.S.2d 504, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pavlounis-v-ashman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack