Nesper v Goldmag Hacking Corp.

Annotate this Case
Nesper v Goldmag Hacking Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 07693 [77 AD3d 598] October 28, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Catrina Nesper, Respondent,
v
Goldmag Hacking Corp. et al., Appellants.

—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants.

Marie R. Hodukavich, Peekskill, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 9, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Although plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability by supplying an affidavit stating that she was struck by defendant's vehicle while crossing a street in a crosswalk with the green light, defendant met his burden of establishing the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial by stating in his affidavit that his vehicle never struck plaintiff (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Defendant's affidavit did not contradict his statement to the police so as to warrant rejecting it as a belated attempt to avoid the consequences of an earlier admission. Accordingly, there was no basis for the grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiff. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.