Shefulsky v. Sony Corp. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shefulsky v. Sony Corp. of America

232 A.D.2d 397, 648 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9887

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 397 (Shefulsky v. Sony Corp. of America) 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

Shefulsky v. Sony Corp. of America, 232 A.D.2d 397, 648 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 25, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The doctrine of apparent authority or agency by estoppel was inapplicable since the plaintiff’s moving papers were "totally devoid of any evidentiary facts indicating how or under what circumstances [the. plaintiff] relied on any representations” by the defendants that the owner of the premises in which he was allegedly injured was the defendants’ agent (Bank v Rebold, 69 AD2d 481, 493). Further, with no clear indication that the defendants exercised dominion and control over the corporation that owned the subject premises, they "are treated separately and independently for purposes of assigning legal responsibility” (Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211, 213). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 25, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The doctrine of apparent authority or agency by estoppel was inapplicable since the plaintiff’s moving papers were "totally devoid of any evidentiary facts indicating how or under what circumstances [the. plaintiff] relied on any representations” by the defendants that the owner of the premises in which he was allegedly injured was the defendants’ agent (Bank v Rebold, 69 AD2d 481, 493). Further, with no clear indication that the defendants exercised dominion and control over the corporation that owned the subject premises, they "are treated separately and independently for purposes of assigning legal responsibility” (Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211, 213). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 397, 648 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shefulsky-v-sony-corp-of-america-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack