Jewell v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jewell v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.

235 A.D.2d 397, 652 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 185

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 397 (Jewell v. Cumberland Farms, 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

Jewell v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 235 A.D.2d 397, 652 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death pursuant to General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated January 17, 1996, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties’ submissions raised triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) both as to whether the defendant sold beer directly (see, Sherman v Robinson, 80 NY2d 483, 485) to the 19-year-old operator of the vehicle involved in the accident which resulted in the death of James E. Jewell, and as to whether the deceased procured or caused the operator’s intoxication (see, Prunty v Keltie’s Bum Steer, 163 AD2d 595). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 wrongful death pursuant to General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated January 17, 1996, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties’ submissions raised triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) both as to whether the defendant sold beer directly (see, Sherman v Robinson, 80 NY2d 483, 485) to the 19-year-old operator of the vehicle involved in the accident which resulted in the death of James E. Jewell, and as to whether the deceased procured or caused the operator’s intoxication (see, Prunty v Keltie’s Bum Steer, 163 AD2d 595). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 397, 652 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewell-v-cumberland-farms-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack