Ripton v. Gracie

266 A.D.2d 885, 698 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11875
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motions of defendants Jane Gracie and Beverly Dries for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Plaintiff Cathy A. Ripton’s 14-year-old son was injured while operating a moped owned by Dries that collided with a motor vehicle driven by Gracie. With respect to Dries, the complaint alleges the negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument. Dries failed to establish as a matter of law that the moped is not a dangerous instrument (see, Alessi v Alessi, 103 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024), and there is a further issue of fact whether she was, or should have been, aware of its use by her children’s friends (see, Paladino v Isasi, 123 AD2d 379, 381). With respect to Gracie, the complaint alleges the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and there is a triable issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327, rearg denied 77 NY2d 990). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Dillon, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.

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

Ripton v. Gracie, 266 A.D.2d 885, 698 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

266 A.D.2d 885 (Ripton v. Gracie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nyhus v. Valentino
83 A.D.3d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Rios v. Smith
744 N.E.2d 1156 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)