From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cucci v. Cucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 2006
31 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-00325.

July 18, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated October 15, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the cross motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the interlocutory judgment dated November 29, 2004 is vacated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs cross motion on the basis of the unpleaded and unargued doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine is only "a rule of evidence which merely provides a permissible inference of negligence rather than a presumption" ( Capolongo v Giant Carpet, 292 AD2d 331). As the Court of Appeals recently held in Morejon v Rais Constr. Co. ( 7 NY3d 203, 209), "only in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment . . . That would happen only when the plaintiff's circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant's response so weak that the inference of defendant's negligence is inescapable." This case is not one of those "rarest" of cases. Accordingly, the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been denied.

The defendant, however, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that he was not negligent or that his alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries ( see generally Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; Spallone v Petroleum Heat Power Co., Inc., 17 AD3d 569, 570; Hartung v Lindsley, 13 AD3d 582, 583). Consequently, the Supreme Court correctly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr, 64 NY2d 851, 853).


Summaries of

Cucci v. Cucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 2006
31 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Cucci v. Cucci

Case Details

Full title:JACK CUCCI, Respondent, v. JOHN CUCCI, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 18, 2006

Citations

31 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5743
819 N.Y.S.2d 88

Citing Cases

Lieberman v. Goldhagen

Here, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter…

KESS v. ATOMIC FUEL OIL TRANSPORT, INC.

The 11th cause of action to recover based upon res ipsa loquitur fails to state a cause of action and is…