Schmidt v. Wikiert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmidt v. Wikiert

123 A.D.3d 900, 996 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2013-11438

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 900 (Schmidt v. Wikiert) 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

Schmidt v. Wikiert, 123 A.D.3d 900, 996 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon reargument, adhered to an original determination dated March 14, 2013, denying her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

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

Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the motion of the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of *901 Leon Kxzewina (hereinafter the appellant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The appellant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lipco Elec. Corp. v ASG Consulting Corp., 117 AD3d 688, 689 [2014]; Rahman v Smith, 40 AD3d 613 [2007]; Wheeler v Citizens Telecom. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 18 AD3d 1002, 1005 [2005]; cf. Kosturek v Kosturek, 107 AD3d 762, 763 [2013]). Accordingly, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, 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 defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon reargument, adhered to an original determination dated March 14, 2013, denying her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

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

Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the motion of the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of *901 Leon Kxzewina (hereinafter the appellant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The appellant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lipco Elec. Corp. v ASG Consulting Corp., 117 AD3d 688, 689 [2014]; Rahman v Smith, 40 AD3d 613 [2007]; Wheeler v Citizens Telecom. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 18 AD3d 1002, 1005 [2005]; cf. Kosturek v Kosturek, 107 AD3d 762, 763 [2013]). Accordingly, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 900, 996 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-wikiert-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack