Castro v. Liberty Bus Co.
Decision Date | 26 January 1981 |
Citation | 79 A.D.2d 1014,435 N.Y.S.2d 340 |
Parties | Albert CASTRO, Respondent, v. LIBERTY BUS CO., Appellant; Walter Sedwitz et al., Defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Vincent P. Nesci, P. C., Yonkers, for appellant.
Before DAMIANI, J. P., and GIBBONS, RABIN, and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant Liberty Bus Co. from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered July 2, 1980, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint as to it, and (2) an order of the same court, entered August 14, 1980, which denied its motion which, in effect, was for renewal.
Order entered August 14, 1980 reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, order entered July 2, 1980, vacated, appellant's motion for summary judgment granted and complaint dismissed as to it.
Appeal from order entered July 2, 1980 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a multiple vehicle collision. One of the vehicles involved was a bus bearing license plate number 4982 BC. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant Liberty Bus Co. (hereinafter Liberty) was the owner of that bus. The answer of Liberty denies ownership. Liberty moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint as to it. In support of its motion it submitted (1) the 1980 certificate of registration of the bus bearing license plate number 4982 BC which stated that it was owned by the Riverdale Transit Corp. and (2) an "arbitration ticket" concerning arbitration proceedings between plaintiff's employer, whose vehicle was also damaged in the accident, and the Riverdale Transit Corp. In opposition to this motion, plaintiff's attorney submitted an affirmation in which he averred that shortly after the accident his office made an investigation that revealed that Liberty was the owner of the vehicle in question. He claimed that the certificate of registration for 1980 did not reveal who owned the bus in 1977 when the accident happened. Special Term, by order entered July 2, 1980, denied the motion for summary judgment.
Shortly thereafter, Liberty made a motion denominated as one for "reargument" which was supported by additional proof of its nonownership of the bus at the time of the accident. The additional proof consisted of the police report made at the accident scene showing that the owner of the bus bearing license plate number 4982 BC was the Riverdale Transit Corp. Although this motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunters for Deer, Inc. v. Town of Smithtown
...order to establish that the matters set forth in his pleadings are real and capable of being established ( Castro v. Liberty Bus Co., 79 A.D.2d 1014, 435 N.Y.S.2d 340 [2d Dept. 1981] ). Furthermore, the evidence submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment should be viewed in ......
-
Sokol v. Lyncan Ung
... ... establish that the matters set forth in his pleadings are ... real and capable of being established (Castro v Liberty ... Bus Co., 79 A.D.2d 1014, 435 N.Y.S.2d 340 [2d Dept ... 1981]) ... The ... requisite elements of proof ... ...
-
Mincione v. The Cnty. of Suffolk
... ... that the matters set forth in his pleadings are real and ... capable of being established (Castro v Liberty Bus ... Co., 79 A.D.2d 1014, 435 N.Y.S.2d 340 [2d Dept 1981]) ... Furthermore, the evidence submitted in connection with a ... ...
-
Tomala v. Islandia Expressway Realty, LLC
... ... that the matters set forth in his pleadings are real and ... capable of being established (Castro v. Liberty Bus ... Co., 79 A.D.2d 1014, 435 N.Y.S.2d 340 [2nd Dept. 1981]) ... Summary judgment shall only be granted when there are no ... ...