Lindsay v. Potter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lindsay v. Potter

163 A.D.2d 870

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 A.D.2d 870 (Lindsay v. Potter) 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

Lindsay v. Potter, 163 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted to defendant Cane, doing business as Lexington Avenue Inn. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, defendant must establish his defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]; Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420, 425). Upon review of the record, we find that defendant Cane failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages was not made to defendant Potter in the Lexington Avenue Inn on December 15, 1985 (see, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §65 [former (2)]). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted to defendant Cane, doing business as Lexington Avenue Inn. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, defendant must establish his defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]; Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420, 425). Upon review of the record, we find that defendant Cane failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages was not made to defendant Potter in the Lexington Avenue Inn on December 15, 1985 (see, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §65 [former (2)]). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsay-v-potter-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack