Published on:

Plaintiff Brings Personal Injury Suit for Car Accident, New York Court Denies Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion


The plaintiff in the case is Alex Grunberger. The defendant in the case is S & Z Service Station Inc.

Case History

The defendant has filed a motion on August 10, 2009 for an order that grants a summary judgment in the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said the summary judgment requested is in favor of the defendant finding they owe no liability to the plaintiff, Alex Grunberger.

The action and verified complaint were filed by the plaintiff on June 24, 2008. The defendant responded with a verified answer on August 5, 2008.

Plaintiff Argument

The verified complaint issued by the plaintiff lists 10 allegations of fact and one cause of action for personal injuries that he incurred during a car accident, which was a result of negligence by the defendant. The substance of the claim made by the plaintiff states that the defendant inspected and repaired his car and released it to him to drive. The brakes on the car were defective and because of this the plaintiff crashed his vehicle and suffered injuries.

Defendant Argument

The defendant offers nine annexed exhibits, affirmation of counsel, and memorandum of law. The exhibits are labeled A through I and consist of the following: Exhibit A is a website printout from the Unified Court System in New York State, Exhibit B is a copy of the verified bill of particulars of the plaintiff, Exhibit C is the instant summons and verified complaint, Exhibit D is a copy of the defendants verified answer, Exhibit E is a copy of the deposition of the plaintiff, Exhibit F is a copy of the transcript given by former employee Peter Kulsum, Exhibit G is a copy of the response of the plaintiff to the defendants discovery demands, Exhibit H contains copies of medical reports as procured by the plaintiff, and Exhibit I contains a medical report procured by the defendant.

Dismissal Argument

A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said the defendant is seeking summary judgment for three separate issues. The first is that the injuries that were sustained by the plaintiff do not meet the serious injury threshold that is prescribed by insurance law 5102. Second, the defendant argues that they were not liable to the plaintiff for brake failure as they were not hired to fix such an issue. Third, the defendant states that the plaintiff’s spoiling of evidence warrants the case being dismissed.

Case Results

In the memorandum of law submitted by the defendant, the defendant withdraws the first basis of its summary as it is noted that the serious injury requirement is not applicable in this case.

To support the second basis the defendant submits a transcript from the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the testimony from one of their employees. However, it is found by the court that the testimony from the employee, Peter Kulsum, lacks knowledge about the accident which occurred and is therefore dismissed.

In this case it is found that the defendants have failed to make prima facie in regard to not being responsible for damaging the brakes on the plaintiff’s car and for failing to recognize a problem with the brakes before releasing the car to the plaintiff. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said for this reason the court denies the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you if you ever find yourself in need of legal advice. The lawyers at the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are experts in all areas of the law and can offer you advice and representation no matter what your legal situation may be. They have offices located throughout the metropolitan area of New York and you may set up a free consultation at any time.

Contact Information