Case Name: Edward Kwiatek, Doing Business as E.M.E. Trucking, Respondent, v. Buffalo Truck Sales & Service et al., Defendants, and Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-12-26
Citations: 178 A.D.2d 948
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Kwiatek, Doing Business as E.M.E. Trucking, Respondent, v Buffalo Truck Sales & Service et al., Defendants, and Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 178
Pages: 948–948

Head Matter:
Edward Kwiatek, Doing Business as E.M.E. Trucking, Respondent, v Buffalo Truck Sales & Service et al., Defendants, and Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, Appellant.

Opinion:
—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying Volvo's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie cause of action because, by failing to comply with a prior conditional order of preclusion, plaintiff is barred from introducing any evidence regarding the central issues of liability and damages (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713; Thompson v County of Erie, 91 AD2d 850, affd 61 NY2d 648; Depo v Marine Midland Bank, 79 AD2d 846, affd 54 NY2d 943; McCraith v Wehrung, 42 AD2d 825). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.