Fobbs v. Shore

7 Citing cases

  1. Tejada v. Gassaway

    228 A.D.3d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    [1, 2] A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that neither she nor her 2015 Honda CR-V were involved in the hit-and-run accident in which the plaintiff allegedly was injured (see Coster v. AT & T Seres., Inc., 187 A.D.3d 1135. 1137, 131 N.Y.S.3d 236; Gomez v. City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 1494, 1495, 131 N.Y.S.3d 94; Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874, 875, 95 N.Y.S.3d 883; Mora v. Kane is Able, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 1022, 1022, 963 N.Y.S.2d 375). In opposition, the plaintiff, who provided no description of the vehicle that struck his vehicle or any explanation as to how he obtained the subject license plate number, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeCastor v. AT & T Servs., Inc., 187 A.D.3d at 1137, 131 N.Y.S.3d 236; Gomez v. City of New York, 186 A.D.3d at 1495, 131 N.Y.S.3d 94; Mora v. Kane is Able, Inc., 105 A.D.3d at 1022-1023, 963 N.Y.S.2d 375; cf. Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d at 875, 95 N.Y.S.3d 883).

  2. Tejada v. Gassaway

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Propsect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that neither she nor her 2015 Honda CR-V were involved in the hit-and-run accident in which the plaintiff allegedly was injured (see Costor v AT & T Servs., Inc., 187 A.D.3d 1135, 1137; Gomez v City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 1494, 1495; Fobbs v Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874, 875; Mora v Kane is Able, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 1022, 1022). In opposition, the plaintiff, who provided no description of the vehicle that struck his vehicle or any explanation as to how he obtained the subject license plate number,

  3. Gomez v. City of New York,

    186 A.D.3d 1494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    The plaintiffs appeal."While the ultimate burden of proof at trial will fall upon the plaintiff, a defendant seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form" ( Collado v. Jiacono, 126 A.D.3d 927, 928, 6 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; seeZuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874, 875, 95 N.Y.S.3d 883 ). Here, the City submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that its vehicle did not strike the injured plaintiff (seeAlvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ; Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874, 95 N.Y.S.3d 883 ; Mora v. Kane is Able, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 1022, 963 N.Y.S.2d 375 ).

  4. Duran v. Commercial Mexicana Internacional, Inc.

    217 A.D.3d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    The defendants appeal. "While the ultimate burden of proof at trial will fall upon the plaintiff, a defendant seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form" ( Collado v. Jiacono, 126 A.D.3d 927, 928, 6 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; seeZuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874, 875, 95 N.Y.S.3d 883 ). The ultimate burden of proof after trial plays no part in the assessment of whether there are relevant factual issues presented on a motion for summary judgment (seeCollado v. Jiacono, 126 A.D.3d at 928, 6 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; see generallyJacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824, 988 N.Y.S.2d 86, 11 N.E.3d 159 ).

  5. Lie Mei v. Cornish Assocs.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32395 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    (Collado v. Jiacono, 126 A.D.3d 927 [2d Dept 2014] citing Scott v. LongIsland Power Authority, 294 A.D.2d 348 [2d Dept 2002]; see also Bush v. St. Claire's Hospital, 82 N.Y.2d 738 [1993]; Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874 [2d Dept 2019]).

  6. Dejarnette v. Maced. Senior Residence, L.P.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 34179 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    It is well settled that summary judgment should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inference may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility. (Collado v. Jiacono, 126 A.D.3d 927 [2d Dept 2014] citing Scott v. Long Island Power Authority, 294 A.D.2d 348 [2d Dept 2002]; see also Fobbs v. Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874 [2d Dept 2019]).

  7. Yahney v. Stern

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 34727 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    In opposition, defendants have failed to submit any evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of negligence (see Turner v Butler, 139 A.D.3d 715, 32 N.Y.S.3d 174 [2d Dept 2016]; HoffmanvCity of New York, 137 A.D.3d 1078, 26 N.Y.S.3d 880 [2d Dept 2016]; Monteleone v Jung Pyo Hong, supra; cf. Fobbs v Shore, 171 A.D.3d 874, 95 N.Y.S.3d 883 [2d Dept 2019]). Defendants have not submitted any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had a red light when he entered the intersection in order to demonstrate that plaintiff may have violated the applicable Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Kaziu v Human Care Servs. for Families &Children, Inc., 167 A.D.3d 588, 90 N.Y.S.3d 66 [2d Dept 2018]; Chuachingco v Christ, 132 A.D.3d 798, 18N.Y.S.3d425 [2d Dept 2015]; Fauvell v Samson, 61 A.D.3d 714, 877 N.Y.S.2d 194 [2d Dept 2009]).