O'Brien v. Catamount Ski Resort, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. Catamount Ski Resort, Inc.

247 A.D.2d 596, 670 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1737

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 596 (O'Brien v. Catamount Ski Resort, 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

O'Brien v. Catamount Ski Resort, Inc., 247 A.D.2d 596, 670 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered December 2, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[597]*597Since there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and whether that negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of the injuries of the plaintiff Kevin O’Brien, the motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of this determination.

Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered December 2, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[597]*597Since there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and whether that negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of the injuries of the plaintiff Kevin O’Brien, the motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of this determination.

Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 596, 670 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-catamount-ski-resort-inc-nyappdiv-1998.