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.
Quanne Tomlinson, Appellant, v. Enterprise-2411 Hempstead, Respondent.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damage sustained in an automobile accident to a vehicle he claimed to own. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court (Robert E. Pipia, J.) dated June 20, 2024, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) based upon plaintiff's lack of standing.
"On a defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing as a matter of law" (U.S. Bank N.A. v Marrero, 221 AD3d 631, 633 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro, 200 AD3d 79, 90 [2021]). "To defeat a defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law, but must merely raise a question of fact as to the issue" (Sizova v Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 217 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sikh Forum, Inc. v Saluja, 227 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2024]).
Here, defendant established, prima facie, plaintiff's lack of standing as a matter of law through its submission of the police accident report, which identified a Washington-based limited liability company as the owner of the vehicle plaintiff was driving when the accident occurred (see Lopez v Ford Motor Credit Co., 238 AD2d 211, 211-212 [1997]; Brijadder v Uddin, 27 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50598[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). In response, plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact. Thus, the District Court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based upon plaintiff's lack of standing (see Sikh Forum, Inc. v Saluja, 227 AD3d at 1025; Sizova v Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 217 AD3d at 1008; Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Teo, 204 AD3d 735, 737 [2022]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 17, 2025
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: 2024-679 N C
Decided: July 17, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 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)