From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 10, 2021
192 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2017–07350 Index No. 38546/11

03-10-2021

Thomas THOMPSON, Jr., appellant, v. COAST TO COAST AUTO GLASS, LLC, respondent, et al., defendant.

Law Offices of Ira M. Perlman, P.C. and Robert D. Rosen, P.C., Great Neck, NY, for appellant. Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for respondent.


Law Offices of Ira M. Perlman, P.C. and Robert D. Rosen, P.C., Great Neck, NY, for appellant.

Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (W. Gerard Asher, J.), entered May 8, 2017. The order granted the motion of the defendant Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denied the plaintiff's cross motion to strike the answer of the defendant Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC, as a sanction for spoliation of evidence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We see no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination granting the motion of the defendant Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 N.Y.2d 932, 933, 693 N.Y.S.2d 67, 715 N.E.2d 95 ; Ciccone v. City of New York, 138 A.D.3d 910, 910, 31 N.Y.S.3d 124 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324–325, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).

We also see no reason to disturb the Supreme Court's determination denying the plaintiff's cross motion to strike the defendant's answer as a spoliation sanction (see Squillacioti v. Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc., 167 A.D.3d 673, 675–676, 90 N.Y.S.3d 51 ; Tapia v. Royal Tours Serv., Inc., 67 A.D.3d 894, 896, 889 N.Y.S.2d 225 ).

MASTRO, A.P.J., RIVERA, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 10, 2021
192 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Thompson v. Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Thomas Thompson, Jr., appellant, v. Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 10, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
192 A.D.3d 842
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1437