Rodriguez v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Brown

257 A.D.2d 563, 682 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 132

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 563 (Rodriguez v. Brown) 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

Rodriguez v. Brown, 257 A.D.2d 563, 682 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated September 19, 1997, as denied that branch of her motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the defendant Mary Hildebrandt.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the respondent is granted.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the respondent. The respondent’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment, an affirmation by counsel, is without evidentiary value because counsel had no personal knowledge of the facts, and therefore was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New [564]*564York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated September 19, 1997, as denied that branch of her motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the defendant Mary Hildebrandt.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the respondent is granted.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the respondent. The respondent’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment, an affirmation by counsel, is without evidentiary value because counsel had no personal knowledge of the facts, and therefore was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New [564]*564York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 563, 682 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-brown-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack