From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardineer v. Covino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1999
267 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued October 18, 1999

December 6, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage based upon negligence and strict products liability, the third-party defendant Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered August 19, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, entered November 20, 1998, which denied its motion denominated as one to renew and reargue, but which was, in effect, a motion to reargue.

Calinoff Katz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Calinoff of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.

Marc Orloff, P.C., Goshen, N.Y. (Anthony J. Perna, Jr., of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered November 20, 1998, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered August 18, 1998, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendants third-party plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendant Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc. (hereinafter Mitsubishi), since it failed to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851; DeMasi v. Radbro Realty, 261 A.D.2d 354 [2d Dept., May 3, 1999]); Baluchinsky v. General Motors Corp., 248 A.D.2d 574). The conclusory allegations of Mitsubishi's counsel and its Vice President of Product Assurance are insufficient to establish that the accident could not have happened in the manner described by the defendants third-party plaintiffs.

The remaining contention of Mitsubishi is without merit ( see, Halloran v. Virginia Chems., 41 N.Y.2d 386, 391-392).

BRACKEN, J.P., S. MILLER, THOMPSON, and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gardineer v. Covino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1999
267 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gardineer v. Covino

Case Details

Full title:CHESTER GARDINEER, plaintiff, v. KENNETH COVINO, et al., defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 6, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 297

Citing Cases

Liquore v. Tri-Arc

Here, to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant needed to submit…