Mee-Hsiang Lee v. 69 Mott Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mee-Hsiang Lee v. 69 Mott Street Corp.

258 A.D.2d 453, 683 N.Y.S.2d 261

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 453 (Mee-Hsiang Lee v. 69 Mott Street Corp.) 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

Mee-Hsiang Lee v. 69 Mott Street Corp., 258 A.D.2d 453, 683 N.Y.S.2d 261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 27, 1998, which granted defendant restaurant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff patron’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sustained permanent injuries from glass shards propelled when a glass picture frame leaning against a wall in defendant’s restaurant was shattered by a firecracker thrown into the restaurant by an unknown person. Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in leaning the picture frame against the wall.

Dismissal of the action should be affirmed because the injuries sustained cannot be held to have been proximately caused by the foregoing, but rather by reason of the unforeseeable act of the throwing of a firecracker, which defendant had no reason to anticipate. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 27, 1998, which granted defendant restaurant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff patron’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sustained permanent injuries from glass shards propelled when a glass picture frame leaning against a wall in defendant’s restaurant was shattered by a firecracker thrown into the restaurant by an unknown person. Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in leaning the picture frame against the wall.

Dismissal of the action should be affirmed because the injuries sustained cannot be held to have been proximately caused by the foregoing, but rather by reason of the unforeseeable act of the throwing of a firecracker, which defendant had no reason to anticipate. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 453, 683 N.Y.S.2d 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mee-hsiang-lee-v-69-mott-street-corp-nyappdiv-1999.