Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.

238 A.D.2d 180, 656 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3719

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

DecidedApril 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 180 (Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.) 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

Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 180, 656 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered April 21, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

In view of plaintiffs’ counsel’s assertion that during the period in question, his two-year-old grandson was diagnosed with, and subsequently succumbed to, Tay Sachs disease, coupled with counsel’s status as a sole practitioner, and the failure of defendant to move for a default judgment, we find that the IAS Court’s decision to overlook plaintiffs’ short delay in filing opposition papers, especially where no prejudice was demonstrated, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, CPLR 2005; Busa v Busa, 196 AD2d 267).

However, we agree with defendant that the IAS Court erred when it considered the affidavit of plaintiffs’ purported expert on tires, submitted in sur-reply, whose identity and credentials [181]*181were never revealed to defendant despite demand for such discovery, and whose expertise cannot be ascertained, or even speculated upon, in his one and one-half page affidavit (see, Mankowski v Two Park Co., 225 AD2d 673; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257).

In order to set forth a prima facie case of negligence, plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the events which led to the injury (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; Klapa v O&Y Liberty Plaza Co., 218 AD2d 635). In the matter before us, plaintiffs’ unsupported and often contradictory assertions, without an opinion from an expert, concerning whether the truck the injured plaintiff was driving had mismatched tires, and how they may have contributed to the accident, if at all, fail to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant’s alleged negligence in maintaining the truck was a substantial cause of the injury. Having failed in their burden to establish a prima facie case, the complaint must be dismissed. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered April 21, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

In view of plaintiffs’ counsel’s assertion that during the period in question, his two-year-old grandson was diagnosed with, and subsequently succumbed to, Tay Sachs disease, coupled with counsel’s status as a sole practitioner, and the failure of defendant to move for a default judgment, we find that the IAS Court’s decision to overlook plaintiffs’ short delay in filing opposition papers, especially where no prejudice was demonstrated, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, CPLR 2005; Busa v Busa, 196 AD2d 267).

However, we agree with defendant that the IAS Court erred when it considered the affidavit of plaintiffs’ purported expert on tires, submitted in sur-reply, whose identity and credentials [181]*181were never revealed to defendant despite demand for such discovery, and whose expertise cannot be ascertained, or even speculated upon, in his one and one-half page affidavit (see, Mankowski v Two Park Co., 225 AD2d 673; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257).

In order to set forth a prima facie case of negligence, plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the events which led to the injury (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; Klapa v O&Y Liberty Plaza Co., 218 AD2d 635). In the matter before us, plaintiffs’ unsupported and often contradictory assertions, without an opinion from an expert, concerning whether the truck the injured plaintiff was driving had mismatched tires, and how they may have contributed to the accident, if at all, fail to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant’s alleged negligence in maintaining the truck was a substantial cause of the injury. Having failed in their burden to establish a prima facie case, the complaint must be dismissed. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 180, 656 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salzo-v-bedding-showcase-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack