David v. Cornelius Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David v. Cornelius Co.

174 A.D.2d 1021

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1021 (David v. Cornelius 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

David v. Cornelius Co., 174 A.D.2d 1021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs failed to controvert unequivocal evidence submitted by defendant that it did not manufacture a Model 85-5 beverage tank and that it imprinted its name on every beverage tank it manufactured. Thus, defendant could not have distributed or sold the beverage tank which allegedly caused the injury. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs failed to controvert unequivocal evidence submitted by defendant that it did not manufacture a Model 85-5 beverage tank and that it imprinted its name on every beverage tank it manufactured. Thus, defendant could not have distributed or sold the beverage tank which allegedly caused the injury. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-cornelius-co-nyappdiv-1991.