Lumley v. General Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lumley v. General Mills, Inc.

240 A.D.2d 201, 658 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6160

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

DecidedJune 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 201 (Lumley v. General Mills, 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

Lumley v. General Mills, Inc., 240 A.D.2d 201, 658 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered May 29, 1996, which denied the motion of defendants General Mills, Inc. and Lewis A. Wilmott for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues of fact remain concerning whether the driver of the vehicle that was struck in a rear-end collision was negligent in that amongst other things he was tailgating at an inappropriate rate of speed and made a sudden stop; and whether such negligence, if any, contributed to the collision (see, Malekan v City Harvest, 234 AD2d 94; see also, Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 NY2d 985). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered May 29, 1996, which denied the motion of defendants General Mills, Inc. and Lewis A. Wilmott for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues of fact remain concerning whether the driver of the vehicle that was struck in a rear-end collision was negligent in that amongst other things he was tailgating at an inappropriate rate of speed and made a sudden stop; and whether such negligence, if any, contributed to the collision (see, Malekan v City Harvest, 234 AD2d 94; see also, Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 NY2d 985). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 201, 658 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumley-v-general-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack