From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kwiatek v. Buffalo Truck Sales Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 26, 1991
178 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying Volvo's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie cause of action because, by failing to comply with a prior conditional order of preclusion, plaintiff is barred from introducing any evidence regarding the central issues of liability and damages (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713; Thompson v County of Erie, 91 A.D.2d 850, affd 61 N.Y.2d 648; Depo v Marine Midland Bank, 79 A.D.2d 846, affd 54 N.Y.2d 943; McCraith v Wehrung, 42 A.D.2d 825).


Summaries of

Kwiatek v. Buffalo Truck Sales Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 26, 1991
178 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Kwiatek v. Buffalo Truck Sales Service

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD KWIATEK, Doing Business as E.M.E. TRUCKING, Respondent, v. BUFFALO…

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

Date published: Dec 26, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Berwecky v. Montgomery Ward, Inc.

Furthermore, in this regard, we take note of the fact that defendants were twice notified by State Farm that…