You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE...

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this car accident case was properly denied because plaintiff did not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault:

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . Accordingly, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability in a personal injury action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only the defendant’s negligence, but also the absence of his or her comparative fault … . Here, although the plaintiff demonstrated that [defendant] was negligent … , the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault … . The plaintiff’s failure to satisfy his burden required the denial of his motion without regard to the sufficiency of the evidence that the defendants submitted in opposition … . Padilla v Biel, 2016 NY Slip Op 07009, 2nd Dept 10-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO OPPOSING PAPERS)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO OPPOSING PAPERS)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO OPPOSING PAPERS)/VEHICLE ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO OPPOSING PAPERS)

You might also like
“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts
Supreme Court Erred by Making Dispositive Rulings on Grounds Not Raised in the Motion Papers
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROPERLY ASSESS A PATIENT’S RISK OF FALLING AND NEED FOR SUPERVISION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency Exception Described—The Court Noted that One of the Criteria, i.e., that the Police Not Be Primarily Motivated by Intent to Arrest and Seize Evidence, No Longer Applies to Claims Under the US Constitution and May Only Apply to Claims Under the New York Constitution
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BECAUSE THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (SECOND DEPT).
Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Snow-Removal Contractor—”Espinal” Exceptions Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STANDING ON THE TOP STEP OF AN A FRAME LADDER WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE... PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING...