Summary
In Dougherty v Kinard (215 AD2d 521 [2d Dept 1995]), the Court held that if the moving party has demonstrated that there are no material and triable issues of fact, the motion should be granted.
Summary of this case from Metal v. ToolOpinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is axiomatic that issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the standard of reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment (see, Downing v Schreiber, 176 A.D.2d 781). Where there are no material and triable issues of fact, the motion for summary judgment should be granted (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223; Triangle Fire Protection Corp. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 172 A.D.2d 658). The party making the motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320), and the party must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361).
In the instant case, the plaintiff's proof, consisting of the defendant Frank Sanders' testimony that he found the defendant Lydia Kinard's car, parked on a public street, with its keys dangling from the trunk lock, and that he used the keys to steal the car, coupled with Kinard's admission that the keys returned to her by the police when they returned her vehicle were the same keys she used on the day her vehicle was stolen, is sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing that Kinard did not remove her key from the vehicle as required by the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a).
In contrast, Kinard has failed to offer any proof in admissible form from which a different inference may reasonably be drawn from the facts as to how the keys got into the trunk lock of her vehicle. Mere speculation and conjecture is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion (see, Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan, 7 N.Y.2d 56). Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.
We have reviewed Kinard's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.