Thompson v. Pizzaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Pizzaro

2017 NY Slip Op 7693, 155 A.D.3d 423, 62 N.Y.S.3d 807

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2017

Docket4889

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7693 (Thompson v. Pizzaro) 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

Thompson v. Pizzaro, 2017 NY Slip Op 7693, 155 A.D.3d 423, 62 N.Y.S.3d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered June 22, 2016, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied his prima facie burden by submitting photographic evidence of the accident site and an affidavit in which he averred that while turning right from a designated lane, defendants’ vehicle, which had been in the lane to the immediate left of plaintiff, turned wide to the right, entered plaintiff’s lane, and collided with his car. Unless refuted or excused, defendants’ actions violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128 (a) and 1163 (a), establishing negligence (see Delgado v Martinez Family Auto, 113 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2014]).

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing, defendants failed to submit any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact, and instead relied solely upon the pleadings and the arguments of counsel. Since counsel claimed no personal knowledge of the accident, his affirmation has no probative value (Bendik v Dybowski, 227 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 1996]).

Plaintiff’s motion was not premature. Depositions are unnecessary, since defendants have personal knowledge of the facts, yet “failed to meet their obligation of laying bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Avant v Cepin Livery Corp., 74 AD3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered June 22, 2016, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied his prima facie burden by submitting photographic evidence of the accident site and an affidavit in which he averred that while turning right from a designated lane, defendants’ vehicle, which had been in the lane to the immediate left of plaintiff, turned wide to the right, entered plaintiff’s lane, and collided with his car. Unless refuted or excused, defendants’ actions violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128 (a) and 1163 (a), establishing negligence (see Delgado v Martinez Family Auto, 113 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2014]).

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing, defendants failed to submit any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact, and instead relied solely upon the pleadings and the arguments of counsel. Since counsel claimed no personal knowledge of the accident, his affirmation has no probative value (Bendik v Dybowski, 227 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 1996]).

Plaintiff’s motion was not premature. Depositions are unnecessary, since defendants have personal knowledge of the facts, yet “failed to meet their obligation of laying bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Avant v Cepin Livery Corp., 74 AD3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7693, 155 A.D.3d 423, 62 N.Y.S.3d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-pizzaro-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack