Moore v. County of Suffolk
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Perri v. EJ's Auto Repair, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Oriental v. U-Haul Co. of Ariz. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Kolvenbach v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Antaki v. Mateo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Antaki v. Mateo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Firmes v. Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Farley v. Town of Hamburg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
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
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated April 22, 2004, as denied their unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The motion should have been granted. The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter aha, a copy of the plaintiffs written confession. The confession demonstrated that the plaintiffs injuries arose directly from his knowing and intentional participation in serious criminal activity; i.e., resisting arrest (see Penal Law § 205.30). Under the circumstances, the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover compensation for his loss (see Manning v Brown, 91 NY2d 116 [1997]; Barker v Kallash, 63 NY2d 19 [1984]; Johnson v State of New York, 174 Misc 2d 193 [1997], affd 253 AD2d 274 [1999]). The plaintiff did not oppose the motion and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the defendants’ motion complied with CPLR 3212 (b). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.