Case Name: Frank Loccisano, Respondent, v. Robert Ayers et al., Defendants, and Conestoga Title Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-07-01
Citations: 130 A.D.3d 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank Loccisano, Respondent, v Robert Ayers et al., Defendants, and Conestoga Title Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
Frank Loccisano, Respondent, v Robert Ayers et al., Defendants, and Conestoga Title Insurance Company, Appellant.
[10 NYS3d 890]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the defendant Conestoga Title Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated August 16, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant Conestoga Title Insurance Company (hereinafter Conestoga) failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the fourth cause of action, wherein the plaintiff alleged that Conestoga was negligent in connection with the purchase and sale of certain premises. A party moving for summary judgment does not meet its initial burden of proof by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case (see Collado v Jiacono, 126 AD3d 927 [2015]; Cox v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 125 AD3d 923 [2015]). As Conestoga failed to satisfy its prima facie burden, the court correctly denied its motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.