Hirsch v. Rule

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirsch v. Rule

249 A.D.2d 966, 671 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5096

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 966 (Hirsch v. Rule) 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

Hirsch v. Rule, 249 A.D.2d 966, 671 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment and order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries they allegedly sustained when their snowmobile collided head on with another snowmobile. Plaintiffs allege that defendants TriCounty Drift Hoppers, Inc. (Tri-County), Sardinia Snowmobile Club, Inc. (Sardinia), and Erie County Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (ECFOSC) were negligent in failing to properly design, maintain, mark and sign the trail where the accident occurred. Those defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on the ground that they had no responsibility or control over the site of the accident. Supreme Court granted the motion in part by dismissing the complaint against Tri-County.

The court properly granted that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against Tri-County but erred in denying that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against ECFOSC. The proof submitted in support of the motion establishes as a matter of law that both Tri-County and ECFOSC “had no control over the accident site, and the plaintiffs did not submit legally sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to that issue or to otherwise establish [the] potential liability [of either Tri-County or ECFOSC] for the accident” (Roux v Patrick, 226 AD2d 695, 696). The court, however, properly denied that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against Sardinia. Arguably, a triable issue of fact exists whether Sardinia exercised control over the accident site. We therefore modify the judgment and order by granting that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against ECFOSC. (Appeals from Judgment and Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., ánd Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment and order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries they allegedly sustained when their snowmobile collided head on with another snowmobile. Plaintiffs allege that defendants TriCounty Drift Hoppers, Inc. (Tri-County), Sardinia Snowmobile Club, Inc. (Sardinia), and Erie County Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (ECFOSC) were negligent in failing to properly design, maintain, mark and sign the trail where the accident occurred. Those defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on the ground that they had no responsibility or control over the site of the accident. Supreme Court granted the motion in part by dismissing the complaint against Tri-County.

The court properly granted that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against Tri-County but erred in denying that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against ECFOSC. The proof submitted in support of the motion establishes as a matter of law that both Tri-County and ECFOSC “had no control over the accident site, and the plaintiffs did not submit legally sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to that issue or to otherwise establish [the] potential liability [of either Tri-County or ECFOSC] for the accident” (Roux v Patrick, 226 AD2d 695, 696). The court, however, properly denied that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against Sardinia. Arguably, a triable issue of fact exists whether Sardinia exercised control over the accident site. We therefore modify the judgment and order by granting that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the complaint against ECFOSC. (Appeals from Judgment and Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., ánd Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 966, 671 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-rule-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack