Seemer v. Seemer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seemer v. Seemer

240 A.D.2d 484, 659 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125

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

DecidedJune 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 484 (Seemer v. Seemer) 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

Seemer v. Seemer, 240 A.D.2d 484, 659 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered December 10, 1996, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly found that she had failed to make a prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The brief account of the accident set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate that she acted reasonably under the circumstances, and was free from comparative [485]*485negligence (see, Barletta v Lewis, 237 AD2d 238; Davis v Federated Dept. Stores, 227 AD2d 514; Jong Chan Lee v Bonavita, 216 AD2d 8; Rodriguez v Logan, 188 AD2d 522). Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which was made only one month after joinder of issue and before pretrial discovery had even begun, was premature (see, Barletta v Lewis, supra; Rodriguez v Logan, supra). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered December 10, 1996, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly found that she had failed to make a prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The brief account of the accident set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate that she acted reasonably under the circumstances, and was free from comparative [485]*485negligence (see, Barletta v Lewis, 237 AD2d 238; Davis v Federated Dept. Stores, 227 AD2d 514; Jong Chan Lee v Bonavita, 216 AD2d 8; Rodriguez v Logan, 188 AD2d 522). Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which was made only one month after joinder of issue and before pretrial discovery had even begun, was premature (see, Barletta v Lewis, supra; Rodriguez v Logan, supra). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 484, 659 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seemer-v-seemer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack