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.
Mark T. UY, respondent, v. MD A. HUSSEIN, appellant, et al., defendant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant MD A. Hussein appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Salvatore J. Modica, J.), entered September 29, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant MD A. Hussein.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On April 8, 2016, the plaintiff was walking within the intersection of 65th Place and Laurel Hill Boulevard in Queens, when he was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant MD A. Hussein. The plaintiff thereafter commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries. After joinder of issue, Hussein pleaded guilty in the Queens Criminal Court to assault in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(3) in a criminal action that arose out of the subject accident. The plaintiff then moved in the instant action for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Hussein based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In an order entered September 29, 2017, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion. Hussein appeals.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff met his burden of establishing, prima facie, that he was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability against Hussein based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Dunne v. Lloyd, 40 A.D.3d 685, 686, 834 N.Y.S.2d 864; Blaich v. Van Herwynen, 37 A.D.3d 387, 388, 829 N.Y.S.2d 639). In opposition, Hussein failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Contrary to Hussein's contention, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate, prima facie, his freedom from comparative fault in order to be awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability (see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 323, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366).
In light of our determination, we need not reach Hussein's remaining contention.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2017–11739
Decided: September 23, 2020
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)