Sporbert v. Lenox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sporbert v. Lenox

251 A.D.2d 320, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351

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

DecidedJune 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 320 (Sporbert v. Lenox) 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

Sporbert v. Lenox, 251 A.D.2d 320, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 27, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendants Alex Kelly and Richard Kelly cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Questions of fact exist as to the comparative fault of the injured plaintiff Michael Sporbert which warranted the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, MacDowall v Koehring Basic Constr. Equip., 49 NY2d 824; Massie v Commercial Envelope Mfg. Co., 245 AD2d 551; Gibson v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 125 AD2d 65). Further, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendants Alex Kelly and Richard Kelly for summary judgment, as questions of fact exist as to the infant Alex Kelly’s degree of involvement in the subject prank (see, Vanacore v Teigue, 243 AD2d 706). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 27, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendants Alex Kelly and Richard Kelly cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Questions of fact exist as to the comparative fault of the injured plaintiff Michael Sporbert which warranted the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, MacDowall v Koehring Basic Constr. Equip., 49 NY2d 824; Massie v Commercial Envelope Mfg. Co., 245 AD2d 551; Gibson v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 125 AD2d 65). Further, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendants Alex Kelly and Richard Kelly for summary judgment, as questions of fact exist as to the infant Alex Kelly’s degree of involvement in the subject prank (see, Vanacore v Teigue, 243 AD2d 706). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 320, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sporbert-v-lenox-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack