Marvin v. Seattle Bike Supply, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marvin v. Seattle Bike Supply, Inc.

231 A.D.2d 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8811

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 500 (Marvin v. Seattle Bike Supply, 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

Marvin v. Seattle Bike Supply, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[501]*501In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Seattle Bike Supply, Inc. and F & S Discount Stores separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated January 11, 1995, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the appellants’ respective motions for summary judgment are granted.

The infant plaintiff was allegedly injured while riding a bicycle when his finger was drawn into the front sprocket by the chain. Prior to the alleged accident, the plaintiff had removed the chain guard on the bicycle. The plaintiff commenced this suit against the distributor of the bicycle, Seattle Bike Supply, Inc. (hereinafter Seattle), and the retailer of the bicycle, F & S Discount Store (hereinafter F & S), for damages arising, inter alia, from negligence and strict products liability. Both Seattle and F & S moved for summary judgment, claiming, inter alia, that the accident was not foreseeable. We agree (see, Rosenberg v Mermelstein, 116 AD2d 712). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

[501]*501In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Seattle Bike Supply, Inc. and F & S Discount Stores separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated January 11, 1995, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the appellants’ respective motions for summary judgment are granted.

The infant plaintiff was allegedly injured while riding a bicycle when his finger was drawn into the front sprocket by the chain. Prior to the alleged accident, the plaintiff had removed the chain guard on the bicycle. The plaintiff commenced this suit against the distributor of the bicycle, Seattle Bike Supply, Inc. (hereinafter Seattle), and the retailer of the bicycle, F & S Discount Store (hereinafter F & S), for damages arising, inter alia, from negligence and strict products liability. Both Seattle and F & S moved for summary judgment, claiming, inter alia, that the accident was not foreseeable. We agree (see, Rosenberg v Mermelstein, 116 AD2d 712). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvin-v-seattle-bike-supply-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack