Bates v. Yasin
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Deal v. Bank of Am. Leasing Capital, LLC (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Deal v. Bank of Am. Leasing Capital, LLC (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- B. E. M. v. Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Grasso v. Nassau County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Jiang-Hong Chen v. Heart Transit, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Merchants Preferred Ins. Co. v. Waldo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Allstate Insurance v. Ramlall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Stief v. URA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Iacone v. Passanisi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Holloman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Lucas v. Fulton Realty Partners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Cleary v. Wallace Oil Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Chang v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Civil Court of the City of New York 2005)
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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated March 19, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence, in the form of deposition testimony, which demonstrated that they were not at fault in the happening of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs attorney has no probative weight and cannot raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). The only other evidence submitted by the plaintiff was the MV-104 police accident report. The unsworn, self-serving statement in the MV-104 by the plaintiffs decedent that the defendants’ vehicle hit his vehicle was insufficient as a matter of law to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lacagnino v Gonzalez, 306 AD2d 250 [2003]; Hoffman v Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., 266 AD2d 509, 510 [1999]; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 270-271 [1999]; Molina v NYRAC, Inc., 228 AD2d 655, 656 [1996]; Rue v Stokes, 191 AD2d 245, 246-247 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.