Puppo v. Spano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puppo v. Spano

252 A.D.2d 548, 675 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8381

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

DecidedJuly 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 548 (Puppo v. Spano) 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

Puppo v. Spano, 252 A.D.2d 548, 675 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Arthur Smyles appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered February 26, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The motion for summary judgment was properly denied since the record shows the existence of factual questions as to whether or not the homeowner was negligent in supervising the party that took place at his home (see, D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85; Lane v Barker, 241 AD2d 739; Comeau v Lucas, 90 AD2d 674). The appellant’s remaining contention, that there is no liability under General Obligations Law § 11-100, is academic as there is no claim of liability thereunder. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, 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, the defendant Arthur Smyles appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered February 26, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The motion for summary judgment was properly denied since the record shows the existence of factual questions as to whether or not the homeowner was negligent in supervising the party that took place at his home (see, D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85; Lane v Barker, 241 AD2d 739; Comeau v Lucas, 90 AD2d 674). The appellant’s remaining contention, that there is no liability under General Obligations Law § 11-100, is academic as there is no claim of liability thereunder. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 548, 675 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puppo-v-spano-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack