From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Batista v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 3, 2006
25 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7457.

January 3, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered August 24, 2004, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger was hit in the rear by defendant-respondent's vehicle, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Lisa M. Comeau, Mineola, for appellant.

Faust Goetz Schenker Blee LLP, New York (Mary Joseph of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ., concur.


Plaintiff did not support the motion with evidentiary proof in admissible form ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), but instead relied on an attorney's affirmation ( see id. at 563) and hearsay portions of a police accident report ( see Conners v. Duck's Cesspool Serv., 144 AD2d 329). Plaintiff did submit his verified complaint, but that merely stated that the host car was "situated" at the intersection, not stopped, and that defendant's car "made contact" with the host car without indicating that the contact was from behind. The only sworn statement of a rear-end collision in support of the motion by a person with knowledge of the facts is plaintiff's reply affidavit, which may not be considered for the purpose of showing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment ( see Azzopardi v. American Blower Corp., 192 AD2d 453; cf. Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).


Summaries of

Batista v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 3, 2006
25 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Batista v. Santiago

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS BATISTA, Appellant, v. SAMANTHA SANTIAGO, Respondent, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 3, 2006

Citations

25 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 20
807 N.Y.S.2d 340

Citing Cases

Zovas v. Eckerd Corp.

Reply papers may not be considered in determining whether the movant has shown prima facie entitlement to…

West 45 APF LLC v. Take Time to Travel, Inc.

There are no documents provided and an attorney's factual statement, not based on actual knowledge, will not…