Abraham motion in New York

2025Notwithstanding the court's failure, however, the record is sufficiently developed to permit us to exercise our authority to make the required determinations ( cf. People v Palmer , 20 NY3d 373, 380 [2013]; Matter of Kathleen K. v Daniel L. , 177 AD3d 1130 , 1132 [3d Dept 2019]; see generally CPLR 5501 [c]).

2021Finally, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of so much of the negligence cause of action as demanded punitive damages insofar as asserted against Abraham. "[P]unitive damages are available for the purpose of vindicating a public right only where the actions of the alleged tort-feasor constitute gross recklessness or intentional, wanton or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally or are activated by evil or reprehensible motives" ( Gravitt v Newman , [*3] 114 AD2d 1000, 1002 ; see Thomas v Farrago , 154 AD3d 896, 898 ; Nooger v Jay-Dee Fast Delivery , 251 AD2d 307 ; Spinosa

2021However, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Abraham's motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging negligent failure to control the acts of third parties as duplicative, since that cause of action arose from the same facts as the negligence cause of action and does not allege distinct damages ( see Lawrence K. v Westchester Day Sch. , 196 AD3d 637, 638 ; Gale v Animal Med.

2021Finally, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of so much of the negligence cause of action as demanded punitive damages insofar as asserted against Abraham. "[P]unitive damages are available for the purpose of vindicating a public right only where the actions of the alleged tort-feasor constitute gross recklessness or intentional, wanton or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally or are activated by evil or reprehensible motives" ( Gravitt v Newman , [*3] 114 AD2d 1000, 1002 ; see Thomas v Farrago , 154 AD3d 896, 898 ; Nooger v Jay-Dee Fast Delivery , 251 AD2d 307 ; Spinosa

2021Finally, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of so much of the negligence cause of action as demanded punitive damages insofar as asserted against Abraham. "[P]unitive damages are available for the purpose of vindicating a public right only where the actions of the alleged tort-feasor constitute gross recklessness or intentional, wanton or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally or are activated by evil or reprehensible motives" ( Gravitt v Newman , [*3] 114 AD2d 1000, 1002 ; see Thomas v Farrago , 154 AD3d 896, 898 ; Nooger v Jay-Dee Fast Delivery , 251 AD2d 307 ; Spinosa

2021Ctr. , 108 AD3d 497 , 498-499; Vermont Mut.

2020"There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident" ( Cox v Nunez , 23 AD3d 427, 427 ), and "'[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause'" ( Estate of Cook v Gomez , 138 AD3d at 677 , quoting Kalland v Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC , 84 AD3d 889, 889 ).

2020However, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant that branch of Trietel and Abraham's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. "'A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'" ( Gobin v Delgado , 142 AD3d 1134, 1135 , quoting Boulos v Lerner-Harrington , 124 AD3d 709, 709 ; see Estate of Cook v Gomez , 138 AD3d 675 ; Baulete v L & N Car Serv., Inc. , 134 AD3d 753 ).

2020However, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant that branch of Trietel and Abraham's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. "'A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'" ( Gobin v Delgado , 142 AD3d 1134, 1135 , quoting Boulos v Lerner-Harrington , 124 AD3d 709, 709 ; see Estate of Cook v Gomez , 138 AD3d 675 ; Baulete v L & N Car Serv., Inc. , 134 AD3d 753 ).

2020However, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant that branch of Trietel and Abraham's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. "'A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'" ( Gobin v Delgado , 142 AD3d 1134, 1135 , quoting Boulos v Lerner-Harrington , 124 AD3d 709, 709 ; see Estate of Cook v Gomez , 138 AD3d 675 ; Baulete v L & N Car Serv., Inc. , 134 AD3d 753 ).

2020"There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident" ( Cox v Nunez , 23 AD3d 427, 427 ), and "'[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause'" ( Estate of Cook v Gomez , 138 AD3d at 677 , quoting Kalland v Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC , 84 AD3d 889, 889 ).

2018Abraham established, prima facie, that the funds which were delivered to it by Harbourview were not conditioned upon its payment of half of those funds to the plaintiff and that Abraham did not agree to undertake any obligations on behalf of the plaintiff ( see Farago v Burke , 262 NY 229, 233 ; Ehrlich v Froehlich , 72 AD3d 1010, 1012 ; see also Mortgage Elec.

2018Justice Kitzes' orders of March 12, 2014 and February 10, 2015 were affirmed by the Appellate Division ( see Matter of Kassab v Kasab , 137 AD3d 1135 [2d Dept 2016], and Matter of Kassab v Kasab, 137 AD3d 1138 [2d Dept 2016]).

2018Justice Kitzes' orders of March 12, 2014 and February 10, 2015 were affirmed by the Appellate Division ( see Matter of Kassab v Kasab , 137 AD3d 1135 [2d Dept 2016], and Matter of Kassab v Kasab, 137 AD3d 1138 [2d Dept 2016]).

2018Justice Kitzes' orders of March 12, 2014 and February 10, 2015 were affirmed by the Appellate Division ( see Matter of Kassab v Kasab , 137 AD3d 1135 [2d Dept 2016], and Matter of Kassab v Kasab, 137 AD3d 1138 [2d Dept 2016]).

2018Justice Kitzes' orders of March 12, 2014 and February 10, 2015 were affirmed by the Appellate Division ( see Matter of Kassab v Kasab , 137 AD3d 1135 [2d Dept 2016], and Matter of Kassab v Kasab, 137 AD3d 1138 [2d Dept 2016]).

2018Abraham established, prima facie, that the funds which were delivered to it by Harbourview were not conditioned upon its payment of half of those funds to the plaintiff and that Abraham did not agree to undertake any obligations on behalf of the plaintiff ( see Farago v Burke , 262 NY 229, 233 ; Ehrlich v Froehlich , 72 AD3d 1010, 1012 ; see also Mortgage Elec.

1976There was no actionable or wanton breach by Bankers Security vis-á-vis Abraham (James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 260 ), nor is there any basis for the claim for counsel fee (953 Realty Corp. v Southern Blvd.