Van Wart v. Robert Van Wart Incorporated

221 A.D.2d 624, 634 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12464

This text of 221 A.D.2d 624 (Van Wart v. Robert Van Wart Incorporated) 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
Van Wart v. Robert Van Wart Incorporated, 221 A.D.2d 624, 634 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 12, 1994, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The evidence adduced by the defendant Robert Van Wart Incorporated in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that it did not own the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger at the time of the accident. The certificate of title indicated that the vehicle was owned by the plaintiff himself, and it was the plaintiff himself who registered the vehicle. This constitutes prima facie evidence of the plaintiff’s ownership (see, e.g., Bornhurst v Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 21 NY2d 581; Doughty v Johnson, 155 AD2d 513; 8 NY Jur 2d, Automobiles and Other Vehicles, § 731). The proof tendered by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s [625]*625cross motion, including the proof tending to show that the defendant paid for the insurance coverage purchased for the vehicle, was not sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact requiring trial (cf, Young v Seckler, 74 AD2d 155). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bornhurst v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
237 N.E.2d 201 (New York Court of Appeals, 1968)
Young v. Seckler
74 A.D.2d 155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Doughty v. Johnson
155 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 A.D.2d 624, 634 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-wart-v-robert-van-wart-incorporated-nyappdiv-1995.