Lehman defendant in New York

2026Depositions are not needed in a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident where opponents of the summary judgment motion have personal knowledge of the facts and fail to meet their obligation of laying [*3]bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Avant v Cepin Livery Corp. , 74 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2020]).

2026Depositions are not needed in a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident where opponents of the summary judgment motion have personal knowledge of the facts and fail to meet their obligation of laying [*3]bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Avant v Cepin Livery Corp. , 74 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2020]).

2013Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment (see Maldonado v Newport Gardens, Inc., 91 AD3d at 732 ; Vista Props., LLC v Rockland Ear, Nose & Throat Assoc., P.C., 60 AD3d at 847 ; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

2013Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment (see Maldonado v Newport Gardens, Inc., 91 AD3d at 732 ; Vista Props., LLC v Rockland Ear, Nose & Throat Assoc., P.C., 60 AD3d at 847 ; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

2013Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment (see Maldonado v Newport Gardens, Inc., 91 AD3d at 732 ; Vista Props., LLC v Rockland Ear, Nose & Throat Assoc., P.C., 60 AD3d at 847 ; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

2013Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment (see Maldonado v Newport Gardens, Inc., 91 AD3d at 732 ; Vista Props., LLC v Rockland Ear, Nose & Throat Assoc., P.C., 60 AD3d at 847 ; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

2018Here, the Lehman defendants submitted evidence on their cross motion establishing that their stopped or slowing vehicle was struck in the rear by the Wojtlowski defendants' vehicle, thereby demonstrating the Lehman defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident ( see Pomerantsev v Kodinsky , 156 AD3d 656, 657-658 ; Wooldridge-Solano v Dick , 143 AD3d 698, 699-700 ; Chuk Hwa [*2]Shin v Correale , 142 AD3d at 519 ).

2018Here, the plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the Lehman defendants' cross motion for summary judgment was premature, since "[t]he mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion might be uncovered during discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion" ( CitiMortgage, Inc. v Guillermo , 143 AD3d 852, 854 ; see Cohen v Lebgutt Realty, LLC , 158 AD3d 740 , 741; Chou v Ocean Ambulette Serv., Inc. , 131 AD3d 1091, 1093 ; Seuro-Sosa v Cardona , 112 AD3d 706 , 708).

2018The submissions by the Wojtlowski defendants and by the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were speculative in nature and failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Kandel v FN; Taxi; Inc. , 137 AD3d 980, 982 ; Conning v Dietrich , 105 AD3d 884, 885 ).

2018Finally, the conclusion of my colleagues in the majority that the plaintiff's opposition papers were deficient only serves to further highlight that the cross motion was premature, as any additional facts regarding the vehicle's safety devices not set forth in the plaintiff's opposition affidavit, if they existed, would have been "exclusively within the knowledge and control of" the Lehman defendants ( Nachamie v County of Nassau , 147 AD3d 770, 774 ; see Blake v City of New York , 148 AD3d 1101, 1107 ; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport , 143 AD2d 792, 792-793 ).

2018Finally, the conclusion of my colleagues in the majority that the plaintiff's opposition papers were deficient only serves to further highlight that the cross motion was premature, as any additional facts regarding the vehicle's safety devices not set forth in the plaintiff's opposition affidavit, if they existed, would have been "exclusively within the knowledge and control of" the Lehman defendants ( Nachamie v County of Nassau , 147 AD3d 770, 774 ; see Blake v City of New York , 148 AD3d 1101, 1107 ; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport , 143 AD2d 792, 792-793 ).

2018The submissions by the Wojtlowski defendants and by the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were speculative in nature and failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Kandel v FN; Taxi; Inc. , 137 AD3d 980, 982 ; Conning v Dietrich , 105 AD3d 884, 885 ).

2018Additionally, aside from the lack of evidence of a defect, the plaintiff offered only speculation regarding whether the Lehman defendants had notice or knowledge of any such alleged defects ( see generally Amster v Kromer , 150 AD3d 804, 805 ).

2018Here, the plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the Lehman defendants' cross motion for summary judgment was premature, since "[t]he mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion might be uncovered during discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion" ( CitiMortgage, Inc. v Guillermo , 143 AD3d 852, 854 ; see Cohen v Lebgutt Realty, LLC , 158 AD3d 740 , 741; Chou v Ocean Ambulette Serv., Inc. , 131 AD3d 1091, 1093 ; Seuro-Sosa v Cardona , 112 AD3d 706 , 708).

2018"A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment" ( Brea v Salvatore , 130 AD3d 956, 956 ; see Malester v Rampil , 118 AD3d 855 ; see also CPLR 3212[f]).

2018Here, the Lehman defendants submitted evidence on their cross motion establishing that their stopped or slowing vehicle was struck in the rear by the Wojtlowski defendants' vehicle, thereby demonstrating the Lehman defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident ( see Pomerantsev v Kodinsky , 156 AD3d 656, 657-658 ; Wooldridge-Solano v Dick , 143 AD3d 698, 699-700 ; Chuk Hwa [*2]Shin v Correale , 142 AD3d at 519 ).

2018Here, the plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the Lehman defendants' cross motion for summary judgment was premature, since "[t]he mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion might be uncovered during discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion" ( CitiMortgage, Inc. v Guillermo , 143 AD3d 852, 854 ; see Cohen v Lebgutt Realty, LLC , 158 AD3d 740 , 741; Chou v Ocean Ambulette Serv., Inc. , 131 AD3d 1091, 1093 ; Seuro-Sosa v Cardona , 112 AD3d 706 , 708).

2018Alternatively, even assuming that the Lehman defendants' cross motion was not premature, the plaintiff's averment that "the shoulder harness was stretched out and it did not properly restrain me" was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the vehicle was [*4]negligently maintained and whether such failure contributed to the plaintiff's injuries ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383 [requiring safety belts in all vehicles sold or registered in New York]; DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth. , 105 AD2d 236 [failure to furnish a working seatbelt is negligence as a matter of

2018Alternatively, even assuming that the Lehman defendants' cross motion was not premature, the plaintiff's averment that "the shoulder harness was stretched out and it did not properly restrain me" was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the vehicle was [*4]negligently maintained and whether such failure contributed to the plaintiff's injuries ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383 [requiring safety belts in all vehicles sold or registered in New York]; DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth. , 105 AD2d 236 [failure to furnish a working seatbelt is negligence as a matter of

2018Finally, while a party is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery in advance of a summary judgment determination ( see Salameh v Yarkovski , 156 AD3d 659, 660 ; Bernstein v New York City Tr.

2018Here, the Lehman defendants submitted evidence on their cross motion establishing that their stopped or slowing vehicle was struck in the rear by the Wojtlowski defendants' vehicle, thereby demonstrating the Lehman defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident ( see Pomerantsev v Kodinsky , 156 AD3d 656, 657-658 ; Wooldridge-Solano v Dick , 143 AD3d 698, 699-700 ; Chuk Hwa [*2]Shin v Correale , 142 AD3d at 519 ).

2018My colleagues in the majority improperly hold the Lehman defendants to a lower standard of proof in meeting their prima facie burden for summary judgment than they place on the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which is contrary to the well-established principle that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to more flexibility in meeting its evidentiary burden than the movant ( see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs. , 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ; Phillips v Kantor & Co. , 31 NY2d 307, 312-313 ).

2018My colleagues in the majority improperly hold the Lehman defendants to a lower standard of proof in meeting their prima facie burden for summary judgment than they place on the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which is contrary to the well-established principle that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to more flexibility in meeting its evidentiary burden than the movant ( see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs. , 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ; Phillips v Kantor & Co. , 31 NY2d 307, 312-313 ).

2018My colleagues in the majority improperly hold the Lehman defendants to a lower standard of proof in meeting their prima facie burden for summary judgment than they place on the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which is contrary to the well-established principle that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to more flexibility in meeting its evidentiary burden than the movant ( see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs. , 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ; Phillips v Kantor & Co. , 31 NY2d 307, 312-313 ).

2018My colleagues in the majority improperly hold the Lehman defendants to a lower standard of proof in meeting their prima facie burden for summary judgment than they place on the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which is contrary to the well-established principle that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to more flexibility in meeting its evidentiary burden than the movant ( see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs. , 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ; Phillips v Kantor & Co. , 31 NY2d 307, 312-313 ).