Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

Babcock v. Allan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 15, 1985 · Appeal No. 3

115 A.D.2d 297; 496 N.Y.S.2d 119; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54562

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Rowland v. Wilmorite, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Ramesar v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
European American Bank v. Lofrese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Forshay v. Star Dairy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
IBT Industries Ltd. v. Schiavo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Leonard Smith, Inc. v. Lynch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Denkensohn v. Davenport (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Kennerly v. Campbell Chain Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order is modified by dismissing the complaint in action No. 1 against the defendants Hugh Allan and Hugh *298Allan & Associates. On their motion for summary judgment, those defendants met their burden by submitting proof in evidentiary form that they did not own the automobile driven by Chris Allan and that, at the time of the collision, Chris Allan was not acting as their agent or servant. The plaintiffs submitted no proof in opposition and failed to show that "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but [could not] then be stated” (CPLR 3212 [f]). A mere hope that somehow plaintiffs will uncover evidence that will prove their case is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Trails W. v Wolff, 32 NY2d 207, 221; Badman v Civil Serv. Employees Assn., 91 AD2d 858). Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to develop the facts before defendants moved for summary judgment. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—discovery.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.