Busnel v. Arc De Triumphe Bicycle, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Busnel v. Arc De Triumphe Bicycle, Inc.

6 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 832

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

DecidedApril 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 567 (Busnel v. Arc De Triumphe Bicycle, Inc.) 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

Busnel v. Arc De Triumphe Bicycle, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated December 23, 2002, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action to recover damages based on negligence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action to recover damages based on negligence. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff did not raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and repairing his bicycle (see generally Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v Parmelee’s Forest Prods., 289 AD2d 642 [2001]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated December 23, 2002, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action to recover damages based on negligence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action to recover damages based on negligence. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff did not raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and repairing his bicycle (see generally Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v Parmelee’s Forest Prods., 289 AD2d 642 [2001]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busnel-v-arc-de-triumphe-bicycle-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack