Schmidt v. Wikiert , 996 N.Y.S.2d 919 ( 2014 )

Schmidt v Wikiert (2014 NY Slip Op 08822)

Schmidt v Wikiert

2014 NY Slip Op 08822

Decided on December 17, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 17, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

2013-11438
(Index No. 10625/08)

[*1]Michael Schmidt, respondent,

v

Zbigniew Wikiert, et al., defendants, Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appellant.

Renfroe & Quinn, Forest Hills, N.Y. (John E. Quinn of counsel), for appellant.

Levine & Gilbert, New York, N.Y. (Harvey A. Levine and Richard A. Gilbert of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon reargument, adhered to an original determination dated March 14, 2013, denying her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the motion of the defendant Lois M. Rosenblatt, as Public Administrator for the estate of Leon Krzewina (hereinafter the appellant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The appellant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lipco Elec. Corp. v ASG Consulting Corp., 117 AD3d 688, 689; Rahman v Smith, 40 AD3d 613; Wheeler v Citizens Telecom. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 18 AD3d 1002, 1005; cf. Kosturek v Kosturek, 107 AD3d 762, 763). Accordingly, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court