Ranno v. Cantor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ranno v. Cantor

129 A.D.3d 699, 9 N.Y.S.3d 586

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

DecidedJune 3, 2015

Docket2014-10257

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 699 (Ranno v. Cantor) 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

Ranno v. Cantor, 129 A.D.3d 699, 9 N.Y.S.3d 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property, the defendants James Cinevert and TF Victors Trucking appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered July 23, 2014, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“ ‘As a general rule, a party does not carry its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent’s proof, but must affirmatively demonstrate the merit of its claim or defense’ ” (Mennerich v Esposito, 4 AD3d 399, 400 [2004], quoting George Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 AD2d 614, 615 [1992]; see River Ridge Living Ctr., LLC v ADL Data Sys., Inc., 98 AD3d 724 [2012]; Alizio v Feldman, 82 AD3d 804, 804 [2011]).

Here, in support of their motion, the appellants merely pointed to gaps in their opponents’ proof and failed to affirmatively establish, prima facie, that the defendant James Cinevert was not negligent in the operation of TF Victors Trucking’s vehicle, or that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Velasquez v Gomez, 44 AD3d 649, 650 [2007]). Cinevert had been precluded from testifying at trial based upon his failure to appear for examinations before trial, and the other parties presented conflicting evidence concerning the events leading up to the accident (see generally Truckenmiller v Duran, 125 AD3d 639 [2015]; Matos v Tai, 124 AD3d 848 [2015]; Boulos v Lerner-Harrington, 124 AD3d 709, 709-710 [2015]).

In light of the appellants’ failure to meet their prima facie *700 burden, we need not review the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Eng, P.J., Hall, Cohen and Barros, 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 and injury to property, the defendants James Cinevert and TF Victors Trucking appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered July 23, 2014, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“ ‘As a general rule, a party does not carry its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent’s proof, but must affirmatively demonstrate the merit of its claim or defense’ ” (Mennerich v Esposito, 4 AD3d 399, 400 [2004], quoting George Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 AD2d 614, 615 [1992]; see River Ridge Living Ctr., LLC v ADL Data Sys., Inc., 98 AD3d 724 [2012]; Alizio v Feldman, 82 AD3d 804, 804 [2011]).

Here, in support of their motion, the appellants merely pointed to gaps in their opponents’ proof and failed to affirmatively establish, prima facie, that the defendant James Cinevert was not negligent in the operation of TF Victors Trucking’s vehicle, or that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Velasquez v Gomez, 44 AD3d 649, 650 [2007]). Cinevert had been precluded from testifying at trial based upon his failure to appear for examinations before trial, and the other parties presented conflicting evidence concerning the events leading up to the accident (see generally Truckenmiller v Duran, 125 AD3d 639 [2015]; Matos v Tai, 124 AD3d 848 [2015]; Boulos v Lerner-Harrington, 124 AD3d 709, 709-710 [2015]).

In light of the appellants’ failure to meet their prima facie *700 burden, we need not review the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Eng, P.J., Hall, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 699, 9 N.Y.S.3d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranno-v-cantor-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack