Coles v. David's Cookies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coles v. David's Cookies, Inc.

299 A.D.2d 309, 749 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10495

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 309 (Coles v. David's Cookies, 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

Coles v. David's Cookies, Inc., 299 A.D.2d 309, 749 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants David Cookies, Inc., and Bakery Queen, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated March 7, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the [310]*310motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as a matter of law on the basis of the plaintiffs own deposition testimony that the tortfeasor was not the appellants’ employee and was making a delivery to a store not owned by them (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to address the appellants’ remaining contention. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, 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 defendants David Cookies, Inc., and Bakery Queen, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated March 7, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the [310]*310motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as a matter of law on the basis of the plaintiffs own deposition testimony that the tortfeasor was not the appellants’ employee and was making a delivery to a store not owned by them (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to address the appellants’ remaining contention. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 309, 749 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coles-v-davids-cookies-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack