You are here: / / DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF...
,

DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER WAS NEGLIGENT; THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY DID NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for summary judgment by Ellis, the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, should have been denied. And the cross motion for summary judgment by plaintiff should have been denied. The defendant driver’s description of the accident raised a question of fact whether Ellis was negligent. The fact that the defendant driver submitted an out-of-state affidavit without a certificate of conformity was not a fatal defect:

… [T]he … defendants raised a triable issue of fact through the affidavit of John Koranteng, the alleged operator of the … defendants’ vehicle. Koranteng averred that he checked to make sure that the left side of his vehicle was clear before he began to initiate a right turn onto Brooklyn Avenue. Koranteng claimed that, while he was turning right, the collision occurred when Ellis’s vehicle attempted to aggressively pass him on his driver’s side … . Ellis’s contention that Koranteng’s affidavit was not in admissible form and, therefore, should not have been considered, is without merit, since the absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit is not a fatal defect … .

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the … defendants. … [T]he … defendants raised a triable issue of fact through the submission of … Koranteng’s affidavit … . ” … [I]f triable issues of fact are raised by the defendants . . . summary judgment on the issue of liability must be denied, even if the moving plaintiff was an innocent passenger” … . Wise v Boyd Bros. Transp., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03345, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

You might also like
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HER FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WHICH WERE MAILED TWICE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED.
PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CUSTODY AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT A PLENARY HEARING; WHERE A CUSTODY AWARD IS MADE WITHOUT A HEARING THE COURT SHOULD ARTICULATE THE FACTORS CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Explained
THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS UNSWORN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT OBJECT; DESPITE PLAINTFF’S SIGNING A GENERIC CONSENT FORM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND... ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECIDED THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS ACTED RATIONALLY...