| Delgado v Butt |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01698 [48 AD3d 735] |
| February 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Timoteo Delgado et al., Respondents, v Nadeem A. Butt etal., Appellants, and Constantino Balbuena Flores et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Goldberg & Carlton, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Robert H. Goldberg of counsel), forplaintiffs-respondents. Composto & Composto, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Eric C. Bryant of counsel), fordefendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Nadeem A. Buttand Mohammad Shakeel appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.),dated June 22, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintand all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing his or her entitlementto judgment as a matter of law by coming forward with evidentiary proof, in admissible form,demonstrating the absence of any disputed material issue of fact (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of thesufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d851, 853 [1985]). In this case, which arises out of an [*2]automobile accident, the deposition testimony of the two driversinvolved in the accident, which was submitted by the appellants in support of their motion forsummary judgment, reveals numerous questions of fact as to the happening of the accident.Accordingly, the appellants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as amatter of law, and thus, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos,Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.