From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McElwain v. Olashansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 2, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed as against the defendant Lenny John Pizzeria, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

On April 20, 1989, the plaintiff, while a pedestrian, was struck by a motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Philip Olashansky. The plaintiff commenced this action against Olashansky and the appellant Lenny John Pizzeria. The complaint alleged that at the time of the accident Olashansky was an employee of the appellant and acting within the scope of his employment, and thus, sought to impose liability against the appellant under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted evidence in admissible form that although Olashansky was employed by the appellant as a deliveryman, he was not working at the time of the accident. Both Olashansky and the appellant's owner testified at their examinations before trial that Olashansky was not working on the day of the accident. The appellant's owner provided an affidavit to the same effect. Since the appellant established a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it was then incumbent on the plaintiff to create a genuine issue of fact for trial (see, Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361; Parisi Enters. Inc. Profit Sharing Trust v. Settimo, 198 A.D.2d 272). The plaintiff failed to do so. The evidence relied upon by the plaintiff consisted merely of such incidental facts as the accident occurring in the vicinity of the appellant's business, and Olashansky's failure to remember where he was going at the time. None of this evidence directly contradicts the sworn evidence that Olashansky was not working at the time of the accident and is of a highly speculative and conclusory nature. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted to the appellant. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McElwain v. Olashansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

McElwain v. Olashansky

Case Details

Full title:BRYAN McELWAIN, Respondent, v. PHILIP B. OLASHANSKY, Defendant, and LENNY…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

Wolfe v. Seecomar

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.). We agree with the IAS Court that the five…

Simms v. City of New York

" Since Willets Point established a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it was…