Sonaike v. Sogade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sonaike v. Sogade

253 A.D.2d 871, 678 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9886

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 871 (Sonaike v. Sogade) 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

Sonaike v. Sogade, 253 A.D.2d 871, 678 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), entered January 7, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, it was incumbent upon the defendant to offer admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Derdiarian v Felix Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the defendant’s sole submission in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and in support of her cross motion for summary judgment was an affirmation of her attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts, she failed to sustain that burden (see, Stainless, Inc. v Employers’ Fire Ins. Co., 69 AD2d 27, 31, affd, 49 NY2d 924). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), entered January 7, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, it was incumbent upon the defendant to offer admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Derdiarian v Felix Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the defendant’s sole submission in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and in support of her cross motion for summary judgment was an affirmation of her attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts, she failed to sustain that burden (see, Stainless, Inc. v Employers’ Fire Ins. Co., 69 AD2d 27, 31, affd, 49 NY2d 924). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 871, 678 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonaike-v-sogade-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack