Santorio v. Diaz

86 A.D.2d 926, 448 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15607
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 926 (Santorio v. Diaz) 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
Santorio v. Diaz, 86 A.D.2d 926, 448 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Harlem, J.), entered May 12,1981 in Schenectady County, which denied a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Michael Diaz, Jr., the driver, was involved in a one-car accident in which plaintiff, his passenger, suffered injuries. She instituted a negligence action against the owner, the driver’s father, Michael A. Diaz, Sr. Although the driver is a named defendant, he apparently was never served and is not a party to this action. The motion for summary judgment made by Michael A. Diaz, Sr., has as its predicate the claim that the driver, whose license had been revoked earlier, did not have the owner’s permission or consent, express or implied, to use the vehicle. Both father and son submitted affidavits attesting to that fact. Special Term’s denial of the motion prompted this appeal. Summary judgment is unavailable when, as here, the salient facts underlying the motion are solely within the knowledge of the moving party (J & J Log & Lbr. Corp. v Hildebrand Mach. Co., 56 AD2d 910; Utica Sheet Metal Corp. v Schecter Corp., 25 AD2d 928). Instead, the movant’s version should be subjected to cross-examination at trial (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3212:19, pp 438-439). Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Leonard v. Karlewicz
215 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Chang v. Fernandez
170 A.D.2d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Bermeo v. Prospect Hospital
162 A.D.2d 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Fusco v. D'Agostino
158 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Plum v. Long's Auto Body, Inc.
150 A.D.2d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Frame v. Mack Markowitz, Inc.
125 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Delfino v. Ranieri
131 Misc. 2d 600 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Albouyeh v. County of Suffolk
96 A.D.2d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Welch v. Grant Development Co.
120 Misc. 2d 493 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.D.2d 926, 448 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santorio-v-diaz-nyappdiv-1982.