Crowley v. Westbury Kennel Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crowley v. Westbury Kennel Ass'n

3 A.D.3d 469, 769 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 469 (Crowley v. Westbury Kennel Ass'n) 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

Crowley v. Westbury Kennel Ass'n, 3 A.D.3d 469, 769 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Westbury Kennel Association, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered March 28, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The appellant established that neither overcrowding nor a failure to supervise the crowd proximately caused the plaintiffs accident (see Williams v New York Rapid Tr. Corp., 272 NY 366 [1936]; Blashka v South Shore Skating, 193 AD2d 772, 773 [1993]; Ryan v City of New York, 7 AD2d 298, 299 [1959], affd 6 NY2d 896 [1959]). In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, 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 Westbury Kennel Association, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered March 28, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The appellant established that neither overcrowding nor a failure to supervise the crowd proximately caused the plaintiffs accident (see Williams v New York Rapid Tr. Corp., 272 NY 366 [1936]; Blashka v South Shore Skating, 193 AD2d 772, 773 [1993]; Ryan v City of New York, 7 AD2d 298, 299 [1959], affd 6 NY2d 896 [1959]). In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 469, 769 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-westbury-kennel-assn-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack