Schmidt v. Wikiert

• Decision Date: 17 December 2014
• Docket Number: 2013-11438
• Citation: 996 N.Y.S.2d 919 (Mem),123 A.D.3d 900,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08822
• Parties: Michael SCHMIDT, respondent, v. Zbigniew WIKIERT, et al., defendants, Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

123 A.D.3d 900

996 N.Y.S.2d 919 (Mem)

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08822

Michael SCHMIDT, respondent

v. Zbigniew WIKIERT, et al., defendantsLois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appellant.

2013-11438

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 17, 2014.

Renfroe & Quinn, Forest Hills, N.Y. (John E. Quinn of counsel), for appellant.

Levine & Gilbert, New York, N.Y. (Harvey A. Levine and Richard A. Gilbert of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon reargument, adhered to an original determination dated March 14, 2013, denying her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the motion of the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina (hereinafter the appellant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The appellant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 117 A.D.3d 688, 689, 984 N.Y.S.2d 619 ; Rahman v. Smith, 40 A.D.3d 613, 835 N.Y.S.2d 404 ; Wheeler v Citizens Telecom. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 18 A.D.3d 1002, 1005, 795 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; cf. Kosturek v. Kosturek, 107 A.D.3d 762, 763, 968 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). Accordingly, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).

MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.