Johnson v Sagaille

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Johnson v Sagaille 2020 NY Slip Op 35307(U) October 28, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 514959/2018 Judge: Carl J. Landicino Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 514959/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/02/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2020 At an IA T mi Part 8 ! of th Suprem Court o the tate of ew Y r , he!d in and for the County of Kings. at the Courth use at 60 Ad ms treet Brook~yn, · rcw York on the 281h' day f Octo!Jer 2020. PRESE T: HO . CARL j . LA DICINO, Justice. ~ __ ""· .... ___ .... _ _ ... _ .. _ .... .. .. __ Iii _ - - - - - - ..... - - -X CARL~JOHN Index : 514959/20r8 p lai.ntifl - a ain t - SA DE L ION A D ORDER S Motion equence 4 Defenda,11 _.._"'II . ••""• -••••--.----•- --------•....,•----•--- -• A""'-•---•""-liil""'•-- 6 "'"•·•--•X Recitation as r uired by P R 2219(a), of the papers co sidered in the revt -w of thls motjon: oticc of 1 otion and Papers umheredJe.-fi~el Affidavits (Affinnahons) Annexed .. ... . ... . ... . .•. . ... ..... ... ... .. Oppo i• g Affida . its (Affirmations) .. .. ....... .. .. , .. .. . ........ ... . .. . RepJy A ffida irs Aff11111 ti ns) . ... ... . . , ... .... , ....... , . ...... . After a review of the papers. and . rat argum ,t the 49 51 urt finds as foHow : · h in tant matter is a p rsonal injury action relating to a motor eh·cl accident n ovemb r 2, 201 that oc u.rred at or n ar 9 3 It m - n Av nue Brooklyn Pl aintiff, Carline Johnson (hereinafter r ferred to 1 ·th ··na·niiff') was alr gedJy stopp d at a tniffic rght and v.ras struck fn the rear by th D .f; ndant, ii ew York, Th m agam (hereinafter re erred to as (motion seq:u nee #4) for an order pursuan to Defendant '). Th PJ ainti ff now mov CPLR 3212 granting the PJaindff umrnaey judgment on the i ue o_Ha mty. The O-f; ndant oppo s the motion (motion quence #4) aq,,u'.ng that the PJaintiff has failed lo me I her prima /acie burden. The Defendant cont_nds hat rh Plaintiff's affidavit i self-serving _nd is insuffi lent 10 " rran1 summary relief l [* 1] 1 of 4 n J)efondanr al o contends lhat the o INDEX NO. 514959/2018 FILED: KINGS 11/02/2020 ~..,._ .·., - COUNTY - -CLERK --NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2020 affida H does not sufficiently detail the surrounding circumstance of the accident. Further~ th Defendant. contends th3'.t th _ Poli e Report is iuadn-lis.~ih] e becaus it is uncertified, v n fwth m tion that flf e that the motion I r,e matur sine there clushrel y \: itbi.n th Plaintiff !lf facts ,ess ntial to ppo e the ssession 1 since there h v be n no deposhions conducted to date and the Plaintiff ·s he sole \vi.mess to tlie accident. The lainti ff. in reply arp;ued tha the def ns.e counsel affirmation cmnot rebut th 1 primafacie howing of n gtigen e because i is not based on per onal. nowl dge of the facrs. tso the Plruntrff argues that the Defendant · neg]ig nt a mati r ,o f J , • Summary judgin nt is ad astic r _med that depri es a Mgant of hi or her day inc urt, and it 'sbowd only , e employ d wh n there ·s no daub as to -1ie absence of triabL i sues of ma,eria[ fact'' Kolivas v. Kirchoff. l4 NY2d J6t 3 4 362 03d 493 2d Dept 20 5] citing Andre v. Pom roy 35 . Y.. 2d 1341, -0 . .E.2d 853[1974]. The pmpon nt for ummary judgm nt must ma~e a pr;ma facie showing f ntitJcmen to judgment as a matter of law, tendering suflici :nt , v~den,c to demons rat abs _nee o,f an materia] issu Sheppard-Mobley v_ King lO 6 i Y2d 320~ 32 Med. Ctr,~ ,64 508 o fact. e D3d 701 74 [2d Dept 2004], citing Ab1C1re:z v. Pr !,pect Hospital .Y.S.2d 923 501 Y2d 851 853, 487 .. E.2d 572 [198 .Y. .2d 316 476 motion for summary judgment evj dence mu t I J Win grad P. , w Yo,-. Un/11!. . .2d 642 [l985J. uln determing a e "ie·wed in th Hght most avorabie to th norunoving part • and aU reasonab1e inf rence must be resolved in fa or of th norunovins party. Adam v. Bruna, f 24 al ntin v. Parisio l i 9 03d 566, 5 6t 1 .Y.. 3d 280, 281 [2d De-pt 2015] dting 03d 854 9 .Y. .2d 2J [2d D pt 2014J· Es ohar v. V. lez U6 1 2 [* 2] 2 of 4 I I I ' INDEX NO. 514959/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/02/2020 9-=--·. - - - NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2020 Once a moving pirty ha -, made a prima fa i - hawing of ·1 judgment, '•the bUiden lift to th form ufficient to establish th action." Graham identiacy proof ·n admi sible pp sing p rty to pr duce ist n e of mat rial is u s Han R, al &tat Bro , r ntitlement to ummary fact which require a trial of the . Oppenh im r 1 148 AD2d 493 [2d D pt l 989]. ~a· lure to ma!ki su:ch a h :ving require deni I o l mof n r gar<H s o,f th uffidency of th opposing paper . 'w:i HZ i . Plomick 2'02 · D S8 .Y.. 2d 50 [2d 8~559 610 Depl 199'4). an th r defendant i · ubj ect to a pr ump ion that he o h- hid in the rear th rt gligen.t in failing o keep a · a.11 distanoe between the . hicl , although uch pro um , ion may be o ercome b th _ presentation o 'dcnc suffici nt tor but lh infl &)rs.• 301 AD2d 632 T6 .Y .•2d 61; lOI Reed . .Y. .2d 91 ; Leal v. Woflh 224 AD2d 697, ,697- 98 757 nee of n gligcnce ( e Karako ta ,,. Avi Rem A Car rear vehicle, th 'f bramo D2d 392 6 ·8 . . .2d · cau hi I er ates . Ca1npbelf 303 O 100-01 [2d , t. 200 ]). Th Pl inti ff h a stopped o, topping Jork i1y Tr. A11rh. -99 AD2d 330 749 prim fi ~ (aJ rear end oollision with f n gligcnce again · the opera or of the b · requiring tha operator t , ·rebut th inf; r nee of nea;Ugence b providing a non-negligent c plan ,ti n for th.- Ui ,i n. Klop hin' v. Mari, .Y. .2d 311 , 311 (2d D pt 2007]. _ o u h vj n no materiai issue of fa t quir'ng 5 AD3d 737, 7 7 846 was pre nted by th Defendant. There ~s trial pre nt and th _ motio,n i not pr mature since th~ Defendant ,vou]d have fir th nd knowLd,g f th cir<:um tance but chose not to, proffer his recollection for consld ration. Th unc rti"fi d p ic rep rt is inadmissible. 3 [* 3] 3 of 4 lowever the INDEX NO. 514959/2018 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/02/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 P]aintiff s other evid c RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2020 h r testimony, is uffl th Ptaintiffs motion (motion sequence judgm nt on the i u of Uabmcy, ~ nt to make. a. prima fa 4) is granted. mthat th D 6 ndant te showing. Therefore, The Plaintiff is awarded summary as negligent an the sole proximaL ause of the accidenL ft is hereby rd d: Motion Scquenc #4 is granted~ the Pl intiff is awarded summary judgment on the i.ssu o · HabiHty in thait th D , ndant '\: as negligent and th . sole proximate au of the accident. Th matter shall. proceed on th issue of damag . . This constitute the Decision and Order or the Court. ENTER: '--' N .. . r .' ,4 [* 4] 4 of 4

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.