Garafolo v. A.M.F. White Plains Bowl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garafolo v. A.M.F. White Plains Bowl

277 A.D.2d 283, 715 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11686

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 283 (Garafolo v. A.M.F. White Plains Bowl) 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

Garafolo v. A.M.F. White Plains Bowl, 277 A.D.2d 283, 715 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated March 14, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained at the defendant’s bowling alley when he allegedly slipped on oil that had been applied to the bowling lane. The defendant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it failed to “ ‘demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’” (St. Clair v City of New York, 266 AD2d 277; see, Daniels v Judelson, 215 AD2d 623; see also, Buckle v Buhre Ave. Foods, 232 AD2d 269). Krausman, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Schmidt, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated March 14, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained at the defendant’s bowling alley when he allegedly slipped on oil that had been applied to the bowling lane. The defendant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it failed to “ ‘demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’” (St. Clair v City of New York, 266 AD2d 277; see, Daniels v Judelson, 215 AD2d 623; see also, Buckle v Buhre Ave. Foods, 232 AD2d 269). Krausman, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 283, 715 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garafolo-v-amf-white-plains-bowl-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack