Knepka v. Tallman

• Decision Date: 27 December 2000
• Docket Number: DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
• Parties: (A.D. 4 Dept. 2000) ALICE KNEPKA AND JOHN KNEPKA,, v. TIMOTHY TALLMAN, TIMOTHY TALLMAN, D/B/A TALLMAN SALES AND SERVICE, AND TALLMAN SALES AND SERVICE, CA 00-01667. (Oneida Co.) : FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 541

718 N.Y.S.2d 541 (A.D. 4 Dept. 2000)

ALICE KNEPKA AND JOHN KNEPKA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TIMOTHY TALLMAN, TIMOTHY TALLMAN, D/B/A TALLMAN SALES AND SERVICE, AND TALLMAN SALES AND SERVICE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

CA 00-01667. (Oneida Co.)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

December 27, 2000.

Robert A. Levey, Liverpool, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kenneth M. Alweis, Syracuse, for defendant-respondents.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, PINE, KEHOE AND BALIO, JJ.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court erred in resolving issues of credibility in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Mickelson v. Babcock, 190 AD2d 1037; see generally, Black v. Chittenden, 69 NY2d 665, 669; Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341). Any inconsistencies between the deposition testimony of plaintiffs and their affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion present credibility issues for trial (see, Schoen v. Rochester Gas & Elec., 242 AD2d 928; Mickelson v. Babcock, supra).

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.