Coniglio v. Leisure Rinks Southtown, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coniglio v. Leisure Rinks Southtown, Inc.

206 A.D.2d 838, 616 N.Y.S.2d 302

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 838 (Coniglio v. Leisure Rinks Southtown, 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

Coniglio v. Leisure Rinks Southtown, Inc., 206 A.D.2d 838, 616 N.Y.S.2d 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Maska U.S., Inc., dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the motion of Maska U.S., Inc. (Maska) for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint against Maska. Maska demonstrated its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that it is not a successor corporation to CCM, Inc. (CCM), the company that manufactured the hockey helmet worn by plaintiff Angelo R. Coniglio (plaintiff) at the time he sustained injuries. Maska further established that it did not purchase any assets of CCM and that it had no "special relationship” with plaintiff as a customer of CCM. Plaintiffs failed to tender evidence in admissible form to show "facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, there is no basis to impose liability on Maska for the torts of CCM under the principles enunciated in Schumacher v Richards Shear Co. (59 NY2d 239) and its progeny (see, e.g., Sullivan v Joy Mfg. Co., 70 NY2d 806). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Maska U.S., Inc., dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the motion of Maska U.S., Inc. (Maska) for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint against Maska. Maska demonstrated its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that it is not a successor corporation to CCM, Inc. (CCM), the company that manufactured the hockey helmet worn by plaintiff Angelo R. Coniglio (plaintiff) at the time he sustained injuries. Maska further established that it did not purchase any assets of CCM and that it had no "special relationship” with plaintiff as a customer of CCM. Plaintiffs failed to tender evidence in admissible form to show "facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, there is no basis to impose liability on Maska for the torts of CCM under the principles enunciated in Schumacher v Richards Shear Co. (59 NY2d 239) and its progeny (see, e.g., Sullivan v Joy Mfg. Co., 70 NY2d 806). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 838, 616 N.Y.S.2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coniglio-v-leisure-rinks-southtown-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack