Cashman v Berroa

Annotate this Case
Cashman v Berroa 2012 NY Slip Op 08790 Decided on December 20, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2012
Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
8845 301292/09

[*1]Thomas Cashman, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Jose A. Berroa, et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Sim & Records, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for
appellant.
Law Offices of Cohen & Kuhn, New York (Michael V.
DiMartini of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 9, 2012, which granted defendant Parkchester Preservation Management, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff alleges that he was struck by the side mirror of a van driven by defendant Berroa, and that Berroa was driving the van while in the course of his employment with defendant Parkchester.

Defendant Parkchester made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that Berroa owned the offending vehicle and was not employed by Parkchester at the time of the accident.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The uncertified public safety report plaintiff submitted is not in admissible form and thus lacks evidentiary value (see Coleman v Maclas, 61 AD3d 569, 569 [1st Dept 2009]). The affidavit from a nonparty witness fails to raise a material issue of fact, as the witness never indicated who owned or drove the van he saw around the time of the accident.

Plaintiff has not shown that additional discovery will likely lead to evidence warranting denial of Parkchester's motion (see Smith v Andre, 43 AD3d 770, 771 [1st Dept 2007]; CPLR 3212 [f]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2012

CLERK

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.