From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morales v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 15, 2000.

December 12, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Jerome C. Taylor and Veronica Taylor appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 7, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Robert P. Tusa, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for appellants.

Kagan, Josen Gertel, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ernest Miller of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N. Y. (Susan Choi-Hausman of counsel; Becky Tung on the brief), for defendant-respondent.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established a prima facie case of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The burden then shifted to the respondents to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a material issue of fact requiring a trial (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Hilltop Nyack Corp. v. TRMI Holdings, 272 A.D.2d 521). The respondents failed to meet their burden. They submitted and relied upon unauthenticated photographs which did not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Charlip v. City of New York, 249 A.D.2d 432; Truesdell v. Rite Aid of N.Y., 228 A.D.2d 922; Gutierrez v. Cohen, 227 A.D.2d 447; Williams v. New York City Tr. Auth., 207 A.D.2d 444). Therefore, the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted.


Summaries of

Morales v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Morales v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:THERESA MORALES, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF NEW…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 344

Citing Cases

Degen v. Lopez

Further, the photographs of plaintiff's knee submitted in opposition fail to raise a question as to whether…

Washington v. City of Yonkers

However, the plaintiff failed to meet this burden. The plaintiff relied upon an expert's unsworn letter based…