From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Babcock v. Allan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1985
115 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 15, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order is modified by dismissing the complaint in action No. 1 against the defendants Hugh Allan and Hugh Allan Associates. On their motion for summary judgment, those defendants met their burden by submitting proof in evidentiary form that they did not own the automobile driven by Chris Allan and that, at the time of the collision, Chris Allan was not acting as their agent or servant. The plaintiffs submitted no proof in opposition and failed to show that "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but [could not] then be stated" (CPLR 3212 [f]). A mere hope that somehow plaintiffs will uncover evidence that will prove their case is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Trails W. v Wolff, 32 N.Y.2d 207, 221; Badman v Civil Serv. Employees Assn., 91 A.D.2d 858). Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to develop the facts before defendants moved for summary judgment.


Summaries of

Babcock v. Allan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1985
115 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Babcock v. Allan

Case Details

Full title:GEORGIA BABCOCK, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 15, 1985

Citations

115 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Smith, Inc v. Merrill Lynch

As a final factual issue, Marine asserts that Chase has failed to establish that Spuck, and not some other…

Rowland v. Wilmorite

Plaintiff "failed to demonstrate that facts essential to oppose the motion were in [defendant's] exclusive…