Primeau v. Nationwide Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Primeau v. Nationwide Insurance

167 A.D.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14522

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 941 (Primeau v. Nationwide Insurance) 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

Primeau v. Nationwide Insurance, 167 A.D.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by "tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853; see also, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965). If the moving party fails to make such a showing, the motion must be denied, "regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra, at 853).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to submit proof in admissible form of the value of their loss and, consequently, that Supreme Court erred by granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by "tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853; see also, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965). If the moving party fails to make such a showing, the motion must be denied, "regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra, at 853).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to submit proof in admissible form of the value of their loss and, consequently, that Supreme Court erred by granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/primeau-v-nationwide-insurance-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack