Howard v. Hearn Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. Hearn Department Stores, Inc.

13 A.D.2d 933, 218 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10090

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

DecidedJune 20, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 933 (Howard v. Hearn Department Stores, 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

Howard v. Hearn Department Stores, Inc., 13 A.D.2d 933, 218 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on January 23, 1961, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and order entered on March 9, 1961, amending and resettling the order entered on January 23, 1961, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. Concur — McNally, Eager and [934]*934Stener, JJ.; Rabin, J. P., and Valente, J., dissent in the following memorandum by Rabin, J. P.: I dissent and vote' to reverse the order granting summary judgment against the defendants. I believe that a triable issue exists as to whether the manner of use of the ladder under the circumstances constituted negligence on the part of the defendant contractor, Midtown. Therefore, summary judgment should riot have been granted to plaintiff against Midtown and in consequence it should not have been granted against defendant, Hearn. Nor should summary judgment be granted in favor of Hearn. There is insufficient in the affidavits to permit of a determination as to Hearn’s liability or freedom therefrom. That issue should await trial.

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

Order entered on January 23, 1961, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and order entered on March 9, 1961, amending and resettling the order entered on January 23, 1961, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. Concur — McNally, Eager and [934]*934Stener, JJ.; Rabin, J. P., and Valente, J., dissent in the following memorandum by Rabin, J. P.: I dissent and vote' to reverse the order granting summary judgment against the defendants. I believe that a triable issue exists as to whether the manner of use of the ladder under the circumstances constituted negligence on the part of the defendant contractor, Midtown. Therefore, summary judgment should riot have been granted to plaintiff against Midtown and in consequence it should not have been granted against defendant, Hearn. Nor should summary judgment be granted in favor of Hearn. There is insufficient in the affidavits to permit of a determination as to Hearn’s liability or freedom therefrom. That issue should await trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 933, 218 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-hearn-department-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1961.