Andreula v. Steinway Baraqafood Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andreula v. Steinway Baraqafood Corp.

243 A.D.2d 596, 668 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10284

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 596 (Andreula v. Steinway Baraqafood Corp.) 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

Andreula v. Steinway Baraqafood Corp., 243 A.D.2d 596, 668 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Dunkin Donuts of New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated November 19, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Dunkin Donuts of New York, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which an employee of a franchisee of the defendant Dunkin Donuts of New York, Inc., lost control of his delivery vehicle and struck a pedestrian. The evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the appellant’s motion for summary judgment established that it did not hire the driver, maintain control over its franchisee’s hiring practices, or maintain the right to direct and control the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred. Accordingly, the ap[597]*597pellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Abreu v Getty Ref. & Mktg. Co., 121 AD2d 419). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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, etc., the defendant Dunkin Donuts of New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated November 19, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Dunkin Donuts of New York, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which an employee of a franchisee of the defendant Dunkin Donuts of New York, Inc., lost control of his delivery vehicle and struck a pedestrian. The evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the appellant’s motion for summary judgment established that it did not hire the driver, maintain control over its franchisee’s hiring practices, or maintain the right to direct and control the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred. Accordingly, the ap[597]*597pellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Abreu v Getty Ref. & Mktg. Co., 121 AD2d 419). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 596, 668 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andreula-v-steinway-baraqafood-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack