From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 10, 1997
238 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 10, 1997


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered April 21, 1995, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

In view of plaintiffs' counsel's assertion that during the period in question, his two-year-old grandson was diagnosed with, and subsequently succumbed to, Tay Sachs disease, coupled with counsel's status as a sole practitioner, and the failure of defendant to move for a default judgment, we find that the IAS Court's decision to overlook plaintiffs' short delay in filing opposition papers, especially where no prejudice was demonstrated, was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, CPLR 2005; Busa v. Busa, 196 A.D.2d 267).

However, we agree with defendant that the IAS Court erred when it considered the affidavit of plaintiffs' purported expert on tires, submitted in sur-reply, whose identity and credentials were never revealed to defendant despite demand for such discovery, and whose expertise cannot be ascertained, or even speculated upon, in his one and one-half page affidavit ( see, Mankowski v. Two Park Co., 225 A.D.2d 673; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 A.D.2d 257).

In order to set forth a prima facie case of negligence, plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendant's negligence was a substantial cause of the events which led to the injury ( Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315; Klapa v OY Liberty Plaza Co., 218 A.D.2d 635). In the matter before us, plaintiffs' unsupported and often contradictory assertions, without an opinion from an expert, concerning whether the truck the injured plaintiff was driving had mismatched tires, and how they may have contributed to the accident, if at all, fail to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's alleged negligence in maintaining the truck was a substantial cause of the injury. Having failed in their burden to establish a prima facie case, the complaint must be dismissed.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 10, 1997
238 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY SALZO et al., Respondents, v. BEDDING SHOWCASE, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 10, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
656 N.Y.S.2d 236

Citing Cases

Sinchi v. Aloia

Although such noncompliance with a disclosure request may be a ground for refusing to consider an affidavit…

Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc.

Decided September 11, 1997 Appeal from 1st Dept: 238 A.D.2d 180 MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO…