Amaya v. L'Hommedieu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amaya v. L'Hommedieu

6 A.D.3d 638, 775 N.Y.S.2d 181

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 638 (Amaya v. L'Hommedieu) 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

Amaya v. L'Hommedieu, 6 A.D.3d 638, 775 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated February 7, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was his putting his left hand under the subject lawnmower while the blades of the [639]*639lawnmower were still moving (see Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232 [1998]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560 [1999]; Breem v Long Is. Light. Co., 256 AD2d 294 [1998]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated February 7, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was his putting his left hand under the subject lawnmower while the blades of the [639]*639lawnmower were still moving (see Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232 [1998]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560 [1999]; Breem v Long Is. Light. Co., 256 AD2d 294 [1998]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 638, 775 N.Y.S.2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amaya-v-lhommedieu-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack