Goessel v. Club Med Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goessel v. Club Med Sales, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 356, 618 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11780

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 356 (Goessel v. Club Med Sales, 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

Goessel v. Club Med Sales, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 356, 618 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered July 1, 1993, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ contention that there is a question of fact concerning the resort owner’s and/or operator’s apparent authority to act as defendants’ agent is premised upon the mere speculation that "by purchasing the tickets from club med sales, inc., and/or club med, inc., [plaintiffs] were, at the very least, assured of an agency relationship between the named defendants and club med [village] in Cancún”. "In the absence of a clear indication of dominion and control, parent [and] subsidiary * * * are treated separately and independently for purposes of assigning legal responsibility.” (Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211, 213.) Moreover, even if one of the defendants had been the owner or operator of the resort, there has been no showing that there was any agency relationship between the resort and the air service. Finally, contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Summer 1988 Club Med vacation brochure clearly states that "in the absence of negligence on their part, neither [Club Med nor Club Med Sales]” shall be liable for injuries resulting from use of "transportation or other services”.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered July 1, 1993, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ contention that there is a question of fact concerning the resort owner’s and/or operator’s apparent authority to act as defendants’ agent is premised upon the mere speculation that "by purchasing the tickets from club med sales, inc., and/or club med, inc., [plaintiffs] were, at the very least, assured of an agency relationship between the named defendants and club med [village] in Cancún”. "In the absence of a clear indication of dominion and control, parent [and] subsidiary * * * are treated separately and independently for purposes of assigning legal responsibility.” (Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211, 213.) Moreover, even if one of the defendants had been the owner or operator of the resort, there has been no showing that there was any agency relationship between the resort and the air service. Finally, contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Summer 1988 Club Med vacation brochure clearly states that "in the absence of negligence on their part, neither [Club Med nor Club Med Sales]” shall be liable for injuries resulting from use of "transportation or other services”.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 356, 618 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goessel-v-club-med-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack