Gagliardo v Orton
2012 NY Slip Op 04132 [95 AD3d 1275]
May 30, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 27, 2012


Peter C. Gagliardo, Appellant,
v
Krista Orton, Defendant,and Omar Hussain et al., Respondents.

[*1]Mark A. Campbell, Valhalla, N.Y. (Charles E. Luceno of counsel), for appellant.

Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern, N.Y. (William S. Badura of counsel), forrespondents.

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones,J.), dated May 9, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Omar Hussain,Tanveer Hussain, and Ruvina Hussain which was for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the motion of the defendants Omar Hussain, Tanveer Hussain, and Ruvina Hussainwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them isdenied.

In support of that branch of the motion of the defendants Omar Hussain, Tanveer Hussain,and Ruvina Hussain (hereinafter collectively the respondents) which was for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the respondents relied on excerpts ofthe transcripts of the depositions, among others, the plaintiff and Omar Hussain, which containedconflicting testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident, including whether Omar Hussainviolated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1163, and, if so, whether thoseviolations were a proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident and alleged injuries. Thus, therespondents failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, andwe need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v NewYork Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should havedenied that branch of the respondents' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.