From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Downey v. Mazzioli

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2016
137 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

438 22829/14E.

03-08-2016

Barrett C. DOWNEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Anne Marie K. MAZZIOLI, Defendant, Orfelina D. Jorge, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Reardon & Sclafani, P.C., Tarrytown (Michael V. Sclafani of counsel), for appellant. Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville (Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for respondents.


Reardon & Sclafani, P.C., Tarrytown (Michael V. Sclafani of counsel), for appellant.

Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville (Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered February 13, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendants Orfelina D. Jorge and Julio C. Jorge (collectively Jorge), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Jorge's liability, by submitting his affidavit averring that Jorge's vehicle struck the vehicle owned and operated by defendant Mazzioli in the rear, while plaintiff was a passenger in Mazzioli's vehicle (see Asante v. Williams, 227 A.D.2d 123, 641 N.Y.S.2d 317 1st Dept.1996 ). The potential issue of apportionment of fault as between Jorge and Mazzioli does not restrict plaintiff's right to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against the former (see Davis v. Turner, 132 A.D.3d 603, 20 N.Y.S.3d 2 1st Dept.2015; Couillard v Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng'g of N.Y., P.C., 125 A.D.3d 509, 4 N.Y.S.3d 176 1st Dept.2015 ). The court properly rejected Jorge's contention that plaintiff's motion was premature, since “[t]he mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny such a motion” (Davis, at 603, 20 N.Y.S.3d 2). Nor does defendant Jorge's attorney's affirmation satisfy defendant's burden of establishing a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Downey v. Mazzioli

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2016
137 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Downey v. Mazzioli

Case Details

Full title:Barrett C. DOWNEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Anne Marie K. MAZZIOLI…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 8, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1610
26 N.Y.S.3d 469

Citing Cases

Maharaj v. Lopez

Further, the contention by defendants that plaintiff's motion is premature also lacks merit as the mere hope…

Lopez v. Samuels

Downey v. Mazzioli, 137 A.D.3d 498, 499 (1st Dep't 2016). "Depositions are unnecessary [before the court…