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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 2004·Published

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.

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

Pincite

3 A.D.3d 469 (Crowley v. Westbury Kennel Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related