Beers v. Elebash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beers v. Elebash

186 A.D.2d 515, 589 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12359

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 515 (Beers v. Elebash) 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

Beers v. Elebash, 186 A.D.2d 515, 589 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[516]*516In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell off a "thoroughbred/polo pony” owned by defendant, the IAS Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because of plaintiff’s failure to come forward with any evidence tending to show that defendant knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities or that the horse was unsuitable (Landes v H.E. Farms, 169 AD2d 446). Plaintiff argues that the horse was unsuitable for her, but an issue in this regard was not raised simply by virtue of the type of horse involved, here, a polo pony. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[516]*516In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell off a "thoroughbred/polo pony” owned by defendant, the IAS Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because of plaintiff’s failure to come forward with any evidence tending to show that defendant knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities or that the horse was unsuitable (Landes v H.E. Farms, 169 AD2d 446). Plaintiff argues that the horse was unsuitable for her, but an issue in this regard was not raised simply by virtue of the type of horse involved, here, a polo pony. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 515, 589 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beers-v-elebash-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack