Foley v. Kjarbo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foley v. Kjarbo

274 A.D.2d 414, 711 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7710

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 414 (Foley v. Kjarbo) 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

Foley v. Kjarbo, 274 A.D.2d 414, 711 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 23, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Paul Kjarbo, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Robert Kjarbo, s/h/a “John” Kjarbo.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Robert Kjarbo is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as he is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the infant plaintiffs conduct did not constitute the sole proximate cause of her own injuries (cf., Kriz v Schum, 75 NY2d 25, 34). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to the defendant Paul Kjarbo. However, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Robert Kjarbo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 23, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Paul Kjarbo, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Robert Kjarbo, s/h/a “John” Kjarbo.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Robert Kjarbo is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as he is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the infant plaintiffs conduct did not constitute the sole proximate cause of her own injuries (cf., Kriz v Schum, 75 NY2d 25, 34). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to the defendant Paul Kjarbo. However, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Robert Kjarbo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 414, 711 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foley-v-kjarbo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack