The Second Judicial Department for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, recently addressed the burden of proof a plaintiff must show for a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss a defendant’s affirmative defenses that allege plaintiff’s comparative negligence or plaintiff’s liability. See Joann Sapienza v. Rebecca Harrison, ___ A.D.3d ___, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 08210 (2d Dept. 2021). Simply, if a defendant merely argues that a plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is “premature” without raising triable issues of fact, the court will likely grant a plaintiff’s Motion.
In Sapienza, the plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Brooklyn, New York, when the defendant’s vehicle struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Prior to depositions, the plaintiff moved for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss the defendant’s affirmative defenses relating to the plaintiff’s liability and plaintiff’s comparative negligence.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment contended that the defendant failed to yield the right of way when turning left (see N.Y.C. Vehicle & Traffic Law, §1141) and was the sole proximate cause of the accident which caused the plaintiff to sustain personal injuries. In support of plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff submitted an affidavit indicating that the intersection’s traffic light was in her favor when the defendant’s vehicle failed to signal and, without warning, made a left-hand turn directly in front of plaintiff’s vehicle. Further, the plaintiff’s affidavit established that she had no comparative fault or liability for the subject accident. The defendant’s opposition neither included an affidavit disputing plaintiff’s affidavit nor raised any issues of triable fact; the opposition merely stated that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was premature and should be denied.
The Trial Court denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as “premature” for which the plaintiff appealed. Ultimately, the Second Judicial Department reversed the Trial Court’s order and granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defenses for plaintiff’s liability and comparative negligence.
The Second Judicial Department found that plaintiff’s undisputed affidavit established her entitlement to Summary Judgment on the issue of liability as the affidavit detailed the defendant’s violation of the applicable traffic laws and that defendant was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, the Court found that defendant’s contentions that this Motion was premature failed “to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or [failed to indicate] that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant.” Further, the Court held that “the mere hope or speculation that evidence may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion.”
From a defense perspective, Sapienza teaches us that simply opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability by claiming its “premature” without any support of triable issues of fact, even if significant discovery is outstanding, will not be enough to defeat the motion. Sapienza also shows the importance of obtaining an affidavit of a defendant tortfeasor to rebut the accident dynamics submitted in a plaintiff’s affidavit. Further, the defendant’s affidavit will assist in maintaining a defendant’s affirmative defenses on a plaintiff’s liability and comparative negligence. Therefore, the best affirmative defense to defeat a plaintiff’s premature Motion for Summary Judgment on liability, is a strong offensive approach in rebutting plaintiff’s view as to the accident dynamics and the potential liability for the accident.