Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christine MOWTON, et al., appellants, v. Harold RABINER, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 23, 2006, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries allegedly sustained when, on July 13, 2003, while driving through the intersection of Babylon Turnpike and Sunrise Highway in Merrick, their car was struck by a car driven by the defendant Harold Rabiner, and owned by the defendant Wanda W. Rabiner. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, asserting that the accident arose as a result of a sudden and unforeseeable medical emergency suffered by Harold Rabiner at the time of the accident.
The defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because they failed to establish their claim “by competent or expert medical evidence” (Parisella v. Jack Haverty's Auto Parts, 296 A.D.2d 539, 540, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494; cf. Hernandez v. Ricci, 15 A.D.3d 351, 788 N.Y.S.2d 867; McGinn v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 378, 379, 658 N.Y.S.2d 121). Since the defendants did not meet their burden, there is no need to address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' submissions in opposition to the defendants' motion (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). Accordingly, the defendants' motion should have been denied.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 29, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)