McGowan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGowan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

167 A.D.2d 652, 563 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 652 (McGowan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.) 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

McGowan v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 167 A.D.2d 652, 563 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered April 19, 1990 in Albany County, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action.

Even if it is assumed that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence linking defendant to the application of the pesticide at issue and that such application was negligent, the evidence submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact to warrant denial of the motion (see, MTB Computer Corp. v Chase Manhattan Bank, 135 AD2d 616; see also, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252). We have addressed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered April 19, 1990 in Albany County, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action.

Even if it is assumed that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence linking defendant to the application of the pesticide at issue and that such application was negligent, the evidence submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact to warrant denial of the motion (see, MTB Computer Corp. v Chase Manhattan Bank, 135 AD2d 616; see also, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252). We have addressed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 652, 563 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack