Hippner v. Salomon/North America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hippner v. Salomon/North America, Inc.

291 A.D.2d 433, 737 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1635

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 433 (Hippner v. Salomon/North America, 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

Hippner v. Salomon/North America, Inc., 291 A.D.2d 433, 737 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated June 25, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Ernest Hippner fell and sustained injuries to his left leg skiing while using new equipment purchased from or manufactured by the defendants. The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557), since issues of fact exist concerning the validity of the release agreement signed by the plaintiff, the effectiveness of the ski boot bindings, their ability to release during a fall, and the plaintiffs awareness of the consequences of the bindings’ new release setting. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated June 25, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Ernest Hippner fell and sustained injuries to his left leg skiing while using new equipment purchased from or manufactured by the defendants. The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557), since issues of fact exist concerning the validity of the release agreement signed by the plaintiff, the effectiveness of the ski boot bindings, their ability to release during a fall, and the plaintiffs awareness of the consequences of the bindings’ new release setting. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 433, 737 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hippner-v-salomonnorth-america-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack