Pineda v. North Eastern Security Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pineda v. North Eastern Security Development Corp.

271 A.D.2d 591, 707 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4284

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 591 (Pineda v. North Eastern Security Development 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

Pineda v. North Eastern Security Development Corp., 271 A.D.2d 591, 707 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 30, 1998, which granted the third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondents owned a snowblower which they had loaned to an employee of the appellants. The plaintiff was injured when he stuck his hand in the chute of the snowblower.

Gratuitous bailors only owe a duty to warn borrowers of any known defects which are not obvious or readily discernible (see, Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89; Acampora v Acampora, 194 AD2d 757, 758; Ruggiero v Braun & Sons, 141 AD2d 528, 529). There is no evidence in the record, other than the conclusory and speculative affidavit of the appellants’ expert, that the snowblower was defective. Thus, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Glorioso v Schnabel, 253 AD2d 787; Kracker v Spartan Chem. Co., 183 AD2d 810, 812). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 30, 1998, which granted the third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondents owned a snowblower which they had loaned to an employee of the appellants. The plaintiff was injured when he stuck his hand in the chute of the snowblower.

Gratuitous bailors only owe a duty to warn borrowers of any known defects which are not obvious or readily discernible (see, Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89; Acampora v Acampora, 194 AD2d 757, 758; Ruggiero v Braun & Sons, 141 AD2d 528, 529). There is no evidence in the record, other than the conclusory and speculative affidavit of the appellants’ expert, that the snowblower was defective. Thus, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Glorioso v Schnabel, 253 AD2d 787; Kracker v Spartan Chem. Co., 183 AD2d 810, 812). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 591, 707 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pineda-v-north-eastern-security-development-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack