Abramowitz v. Maghsoudlou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abramowitz v. Maghsoudlou

295 A.D.2d 548, 745 N.Y.S.2d 36, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6708

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 548 (Abramowitz v. Maghsoudlou) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abramowitz v. Maghsoudlou, 295 A.D.2d 548, 745 N.Y.S.2d 36, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Star Pontiac Corp. appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated March 30, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated March 30, 2001, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant G.O. Tires, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing its cross claims, and the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the latter order as granted that branch of the cross motion of G.O. Tires, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order dated March 30, 2001, which denied the motion of Star Pontiac Corp. is reversed, on the law, the motion is granted, and the complaint and cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Star Pontiac Corp., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 30, 2001, which granted the cross motion of the defendant G.O. Tires, Inc., is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Star Pontiac Corp. and G.O. Tires, Inc.

The defendant Star Pontiac Corp. established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proving that it had no duty to warn the defendant Reza M. Maghsoudlou of the dangers associated with driving with different size tires at excessive speeds and for long distances because Maghsoudlou was already aware of the danger (see Trivino v Jamesway Corp., 148 AD2d 851). In any event, even if Star Pontiac did have a duty to warn Maghsoudlou, the vehicle sold to him was equipped with an owner’s manual which contained a warning against using different size tires (see Collins v Rockbottom Stores, 279 AD2d 443). Furthermore, the defendant G.O. Tires, Inc., met its burden of proving that it had no duty to warn Maghsoudlou [549]*549of the dangers of driving with different size tires at excessive speeds and for long distances. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Florio, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Star Pontiac Corp. appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated March 30, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated March 30, 2001, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant G.O. Tires, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing its cross claims, and the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the latter order as granted that branch of the cross motion of G.O. Tires, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order dated March 30, 2001, which denied the motion of Star Pontiac Corp. is reversed, on the law, the motion is granted, and the complaint and cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Star Pontiac Corp., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 30, 2001, which granted the cross motion of the defendant G.O. Tires, Inc., is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Star Pontiac Corp. and G.O. Tires, Inc.

The defendant Star Pontiac Corp. established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proving that it had no duty to warn the defendant Reza M. Maghsoudlou of the dangers associated with driving with different size tires at excessive speeds and for long distances because Maghsoudlou was already aware of the danger (see Trivino v Jamesway Corp., 148 AD2d 851). In any event, even if Star Pontiac did have a duty to warn Maghsoudlou, the vehicle sold to him was equipped with an owner’s manual which contained a warning against using different size tires (see Collins v Rockbottom Stores, 279 AD2d 443). Furthermore, the defendant G.O. Tires, Inc., met its burden of proving that it had no duty to warn Maghsoudlou [549]*549of the dangers of driving with different size tires at excessive speeds and for long distances. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Florio, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 548, 745 N.Y.S.2d 36, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abramowitz-v-maghsoudlou-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack