Robinson v. Cycle Stop, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Cycle Stop, Inc.

48 A.D.3d 1078, 849 N.Y.S.2d 840

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 1078 (Robinson v. Cycle Stop, 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

Robinson v. Cycle Stop, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 1078, 849 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William P Polito, J), entered January 23, 2007 in a property damage action. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages resulting from a fire allegedly caused by defendant’s negligent repair of a motorcycle. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its initial burden by establishing that any negligence on its part was not a proximate cause of the fire (see Calabrese v Smetko, 244 AD2d 890 [1997]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William P Polito, J), entered January 23, 2007 in a property damage action. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages resulting from a fire allegedly caused by defendant’s negligent repair of a motorcycle. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its initial burden by establishing that any negligence on its part was not a proximate cause of the fire (see Calabrese v Smetko, 244 AD2d 890 [1997]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 1078, 849 N.Y.S.2d 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-cycle-stop-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack