From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mimoun v. Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 1994
200 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the Village of Matinecock are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiffs sustained personal injuries on May 21, 1985, as the result of an automobile accident at the intersection of Piping Rock Road and Chicken Valley Road located within the boundaries of the defendant Village. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the Village negligently permitted the overgrowth of bushes and shrubbery which obscured motorists' views at the intersection in question. The Village moved for summary judgment alleging that it did not own or maintain the intersection in question. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village was responsible for the intersection. We disagree.

It is well established that once a moving party has made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 334). Here, the Village showed, through the affidavit of the Village Street Commissioner and the deposition testimony of a road maintenance supervisor with the Nassau County Department of Public Works, that the intersection was owned and maintained by the County and that the Village did not otherwise perform any work at the intersection. The affirmations of the attorneys for the opposing parties failed to set forth any evidence sufficient to defeat the Village's entitlement to summary judgment. Accordingly, the Village's motion should have been granted. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mimoun v. Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 1994
200 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Mimoun v. Bartlett

Case Details

Full title:EILEEN MIMOUN et al., Respondents, v. CHRISTOPHER A. BARTLETT et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 31, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 75

Citing Cases

Federoff v. Camperlengo

Liability may, nonetheless, arise where a county or municipality assumes control of an intersection through…

Yarborough v. Yarborough

Upon the movant's establishment of her entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to defendant to…