Mitler v. Pfizer, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitler v. Pfizer, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 909, 766 N.Y.S.2d 114, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11060

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 909 (Mitler v. Pfizer, 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

Mitler v. Pfizer, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 909, 766 N.Y.S.2d 114, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated June 4, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants X-Ceed Performance Group and Ben Chodor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was hired by the defendants X-Ceed Performance Group (hereinafter X-Ceed) and Ben Chodor to write, cast, direct, choreograph, and star in a “murder mystery” production. During the performance, the plaintiff was injured when a “prop” gun misfired. The plaintiff alleged that inadequate time and space to rehearse caused the accident and his consequent injuries.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of X-Ceed and Chodor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Nothing attributable to X-Ceed or Chodor proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries, which were not foreseeable consequences of anything those defendants either did or omitted to do (see Egan v A.J. Constr. Corp., 94 NY2d 839 [1999]; Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R., 248 NY 339, 354 [1928]; Gaige v Kepler, 303 AD2d 626, 627 [2003]; Radlin v Brenner, 286 AD2d 881 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated June 4, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants X-Ceed Performance Group and Ben Chodor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was hired by the defendants X-Ceed Performance Group (hereinafter X-Ceed) and Ben Chodor to write, cast, direct, choreograph, and star in a “murder mystery” production. During the performance, the plaintiff was injured when a “prop” gun misfired. The plaintiff alleged that inadequate time and space to rehearse caused the accident and his consequent injuries.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of X-Ceed and Chodor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Nothing attributable to X-Ceed or Chodor proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries, which were not foreseeable consequences of anything those defendants either did or omitted to do (see Egan v A.J. Constr. Corp., 94 NY2d 839 [1999]; Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R., 248 NY 339, 354 [1928]; Gaige v Kepler, 303 AD2d 626, 627 [2003]; Radlin v Brenner, 286 AD2d 881 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 909, 766 N.Y.S.2d 114, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitler-v-pfizer-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack