Demetry v. Borderland Farm, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Demetry v. Borderland Farm, Inc.

281 A.D.2d 585, 722 N.Y.S.2d 173, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3127

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 585 (Demetry v. Borderland Farm, 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

Demetry v. Borderland Farm, Inc., 281 A.D.2d 585, 722 N.Y.S.2d 173, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated December 21, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Borderland Farm, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Borderland Farm, Inc. (hereinafter Borderland), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see, General Obligations Law § 9-103 [1] [c]). After Borderland made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to controvert the showing that the injured plaintiff did not have permission to enter the upper level of the barn where his accident occurred (see, Brown v American Mfg. Co., 209 App Div 621; Gilfillan v German Hosp. & Dispensary, 115 App Div 48; Cristiano v Millers, 15 Misc [586]*586254). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether an employee of Borderland invited the injured plaintiff into the barn. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated December 21, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Borderland Farm, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Borderland Farm, Inc. (hereinafter Borderland), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see, General Obligations Law § 9-103 [1] [c]). After Borderland made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to controvert the showing that the injured plaintiff did not have permission to enter the upper level of the barn where his accident occurred (see, Brown v American Mfg. Co., 209 App Div 621; Gilfillan v German Hosp. & Dispensary, 115 App Div 48; Cristiano v Millers, 15 Misc [586]*586254). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether an employee of Borderland invited the injured plaintiff into the barn. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 585, 722 N.Y.S.2d 173, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetry-v-borderland-farm-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack