AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ALFRED F. MARIETTA et al., Respondents, v. ANTOINETTE SCELZO et al., Respondents, and JEFFREY ROGOVE, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting the parties' examinations before trial, which showed that the appellant's vehicle was in the process of lawfully stopping behind the plaintiffs' vehicle before it was struck from behind a vehicle operated by the defendant John C. Scelzo ( see Hoffman v. Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., 266 AD2d 509).

The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to show, by admissible evidentiary proof, the existence of a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' proof, consisting of their attorney's affirmation, which was based upon unsubstantiated hypotheses and suppositions, was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment ( see Hoffman v. Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., supra).

In view of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contention.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MARIETTA v. SCELZO
(May 2, 2006)