Hinderhofer v. Daisy Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hinderhofer v. Daisy Manufacturing Co.

272 A.D.2d 444, 708 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 444 (Hinderhofer v. Daisy Manufacturing Co.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 444, 708 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinderhofer-v-daisy-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack