Babcock v. Allan
Georgia Babcock, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerald Babcock, Appellant-Respondent v. Chris Allan, Defendants Hugh Allan, and Hugh Allan & Associates, Inc., (Action No. 1.) Georgia Babcock, Individually and as Guardian and Natural Mother of Linda Babcock and Another, Infants v. Chris Allan, and Hugh Allan, (Action No. 2.)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order is modified by dismissing the complaint in action No. 1 against the defendants Hugh Allan and Hugh *298 Allan & Associates. On their motion for summary judgment, those defendants met their burden by submitting proof in evidentiary form that they did not own the automobile driven by Chris Allan and that, at the time of the collision, Chris Allan was not acting as their agent or servant. The plaintiffs submitted no proof in opposition and failed to show that "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but [could not] then be stated” (CPLR 3212 [f]). A mere hope that somehow plaintiffs will uncover evidence that will prove their case is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Trails W. v Wolff, 32 NY2d 207, 221 ; Badman v Civil Serv. Employees Assn., 91 AD2d 858 ). Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to develop the facts before defendants moved for summary judgment. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—discovery.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.