Hinderhofer v. Daisy Manufacturing Co.

272 A.D.2d 444, 708 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for negligent entrustment, the defendant James Waltel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County [445]*445(Doyle, J.), dated June 30, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the appellant’s negligent entrustment of an air rifle to the infant defendant was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Hinderhofer v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 272 A.D.2d 444, 708 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

272 A.D.2d 444 (Hinderhofer v. Daisy Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bender Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Treiber Insurance Agency, Inc.
283 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)