Hupfeld v. Speedy Muffler King, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hupfeld v. Speedy Muffler King, Inc.

273 A.D.2d 275, 709 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6523

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

DecidedJune 12, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 275 (Hupfeld v. Speedy Muffler King, 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

Hupfeld v. Speedy Muffler King, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 275, 709 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered July 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

After the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff presented evidence which raised an issue of fact to warrant submission to a jury of the plaintiffs theory of res ipsa loquitur (see, Dawson v National Amusements, 259 AD2d 329; Finocchio v Crest Hollow Club, 184 AD2d 491; Nosowitz v 75-76 Polk Ave. Corp., 34 AD2d 648). The Supreme Court therefore erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered July 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

After the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff presented evidence which raised an issue of fact to warrant submission to a jury of the plaintiffs theory of res ipsa loquitur (see, Dawson v National Amusements, 259 AD2d 329; Finocchio v Crest Hollow Club, 184 AD2d 491; Nosowitz v 75-76 Polk Ave. Corp., 34 AD2d 648). The Supreme Court therefore erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 275, 709 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hupfeld-v-speedy-muffler-king-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack