Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Columbo v. Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 19, 2002

297 A.D.2d 327; 746 N.Y.2d 392; 746 N.Y.S.2d 392; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7967

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Simos v. Vic-Armen Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Fishberger v. Voss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Batshever v. Okin (Civil Court of the City of New York 2006)
Premier Capital, Inc. v. Klein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Manfro v. McGivney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Rochdale Village, Inc. v. Zimmerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Ahava Dairy Products Corp. v. Trident Leasing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Thoubboron v. Convery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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

*328The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst (hereinafter the Village) which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Smuckler v Mercy Coll., 244 AD2d 329; Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764). Where the moving party offers evidentiary material, the court is required to determine whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Steiner v Lazzaro & Gregory, 271 AD2d 596; Roth v Goldman, 254 AD2d 405, 406). In this case, the Village submitted evidentiary material establishing that it did not control, maintain, or repair the area where the accident occurred, and that the accident site was outside the Village’s boundaries. Accordingly, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the Village. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.