Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdamagesliabilitymotionsummary judgmentburden of proofmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantliabilitymotionsummary judgment

Related Cases

Netherland v. Eli Lilly and Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 626922, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,547
View Case »
Bowers v. Sprouse, 254 Va. 428, 492 S.E.2d 637
View Case »
Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc., 332 Conn. 720, 212 A.3d 646
View Case »
Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644, 771 P.2d 814, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 57 USLW 2671
View Case »
Coleman v. New York & N.H.R. Co., 106 Mass. 160, 1870 WL 7076
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Graves v. Trudell, 309 A.D.2d 1220, 765 N.Y.S.2d 104, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 17122

Facts

A resident was shot in his leg by an armed intruder who forcibly entered his home with a loaded shotgun. In response, the resident returned fire, killing the intruder. The police were unable to determine who fired the first shot, but the resident sought damages from the estate of the intruder for his injuries.

Plaintiff met his initial burden by establishing that defendants' decedent forcibly entered plaintiff's home with a loaded shotgun and shot plaintiff, injuring his leg, and that plaintiff then returned fire, killing decedent.

Issue

Did the Supreme Court err in denying the resident's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against the estate of the armed intruder?

Did the Supreme Court err in denying the resident's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against the estate of the armed intruder?

Rule

A resident is justified in using deadly force to protect himself and others in his dwelling when confronted with an armed intruder, as per Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a][i] and § 35.20 [3].

A resident is justified in using deadly force to protect himself and others in his dwelling when confronted with an armed intruder, as per Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a][i] and § 35.20 [3].

Analysis

The court found that the resident met his burden of proof by establishing that the intruder forcibly entered his home and shot him. The court noted that the inability of the police to determine who fired first did not create a factual issue regarding the intruder's liability. The unsubstantiated claims made by the defendants did not raise sufficient issues of fact to defeat the resident's motion for summary judgment.

Although defendants correctly contend that the police could not determine whether plaintiff or decedent fired the first shot, that inability does not raise an issue of fact with respect to decedent's liability here.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's order and granted the resident's motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

We therefore reverse the order and grant plaintiff's motion.

Who won?

The resident prevailed in the case because he successfully demonstrated that he was justified in using deadly force against the armed intruder who unlawfully entered his home.

Plaintiff established that he encountered an armed intruder who forcibly entered his dwelling and thus plaintiff was justified in using deadly force to protect himself and the other person in the dwelling.

You must be