Pena v. Schur

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. Schur

245 A.D.2d 206, 665 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13321

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 206 (Pena v. Schur) 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

Pena v. Schur, 245 A.D.2d 206, 665 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [207]*207County (Alan Saks, J.), entered October 15, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since it is clear, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs’ own conduct in engaging in rough horseplay, which resulted in their crashing through a window, was the sole proximate cause of their injuries, and that defendants’ negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause, the court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Kelly v Great Neck Union Free School Dist., 192 AD2d 696, lv denied 82 NY2d 658; see also, Lee v Durow’s Rest., 238 AD2d 384). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andidas and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [207]*207County (Alan Saks, J.), entered October 15, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since it is clear, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs’ own conduct in engaging in rough horseplay, which resulted in their crashing through a window, was the sole proximate cause of their injuries, and that defendants’ negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause, the court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Kelly v Great Neck Union Free School Dist., 192 AD2d 696, lv denied 82 NY2d 658; see also, Lee v Durow’s Rest., 238 AD2d 384). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andidas and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 206, 665 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-schur-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack