Masone v. Unishops of Modell's Inc.

73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14414
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 611 (Masone v. Unishops of Modell's 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
Masone v. Unishops of Modell's Inc., 73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 21, 1979, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of the granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and, upon [612]*612reargument, denied defendants’ motion. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiffs initiated this action predicated upon an alleged illegal sale by defendants of an "air rifle” to Frank Gianotti, a 12 year old, in violation of subdivision 5 of section 265.10 of the Penal Law. Defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the purchase of the rifle had been made by Frances Gianotti, Frank’s mother. The motion for summary judgment should be granted. The record, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, establishes only that Frank was present at the time Frances made the purchase and that he also carried the gun from the store after the rifle was bought. There is no allegation that he either handled the rifle in the store or received instruction on its use. It was incumbent upon plaintiffs to submit evidentiary facts or materials which would establish that the rifle was "disposed of’ to a minor (see Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728). As a matter of law, the child being present in the store and carrying the gun out of the store did not establish the requisite "disposition” necessary for the finding of a violation of subdivision 5 of section 265.10 of the Penal Law. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Earsing v. Nelson
212 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masone-v-unishops-of-modells-inc-nyappdiv-1979.