PLAINTIFF LOSES SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WE DON'T KNOW WHY OR EVEN IF THIS IS AN ACCIDENT CASE

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

Case: Kominakos v. Lioudis

Date: Oct. 4, 2011

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Queens Bronx; Queens accident lawyer)

Comment: Plaintiff loses summary judgment motion but can still go to a jury. We just don' know why. Can' even tell what kind of case this is, although from experience, I can say that the defense law firm is "house counsel" for Allstate Insurance Company. So is this a car accident? A homeowner's trip-and-fall claim? An accident at a work site or construction project? Medical malpractice? Defective product or products liability case? The answer to all five questions is "maybe."

Another unhelpful decision that adds nothing to our knowledge.

***************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

ACCIDENT VICTIM WINS "SERIOUS INJURY" MOTION; YET AGAIN, LITTLE CLUE WHY(Posted by Brooklyn accident lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on Oct 24, 2011

CAR ACCIDENT VICTIM BEATS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; (AGAIN) NO CLUE WHY (Posted by Brooklyn accident lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on Oct 23, 2011)

NO SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENSE ON NO-FAULT "SERIOUS INJURY" THRESHOLD MOTION; CAR ACCIDENT VICTIM HAD KNEE SURGERY 4 MONTHS POST-ACCIDENT (Posted by Brooklyn accident lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on Oct 7, 2011)

DEFENSE LOSES NO-FAULT SERIOUS INJURY THRESHOLD SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHERE ITS EXAMINING DOCTOR DIDN'T MEASURE ACCIDENT VICTIM'S (Posted by Brooklyn accident lawyer Gary Rosenberg on Jul 30, 2010)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DENIED ON NO-FAULT THRESHOLD; BURDEN ON DEFENSE TO SHOW ACCIDENT VICTIM'S INJURIES WERE OLD (Posted by Brooklyn accident lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on June 17, 2011)

***************************************************

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated June 11, 2010, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (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). Since the plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden as the movant, we need not review the sufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Categories