Clark v. Seaman Furniture Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Seaman Furniture Co.

234 A.D.2d 254, 651 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12733

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 254 (Clark v. Seaman Furniture Co.) 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

Clark v. Seaman Furniture Co., 234 A.D.2d 254, 651 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated October 26, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The motion by the defendant for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint should have been granted. Any negligence on the part of the defendant was too far removed from the actual accident to be considered a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Ventricelli v Kinney Rent A Car, 45 NY2d 950; see also, Pagan v Goldberger, 51 AD2d 508).

In light of this determination, the parties’ remaining contentions are academic. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Florio, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated October 26, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The motion by the defendant for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint should have been granted. Any negligence on the part of the defendant was too far removed from the actual accident to be considered a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Ventricelli v Kinney Rent A Car, 45 NY2d 950; see also, Pagan v Goldberger, 51 AD2d 508).

In light of this determination, the parties’ remaining contentions are academic. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 254, 651 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-seaman-furniture-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack