Stanton v. Pomfrey

New York Court of Appeals

Stanton v. Pomfrey

734 N.E.2d 749, 95 N.Y.2d 826, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1420

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 734 N.E.2d 749 (Stanton v. Pomfrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanton v. Pomfrey, 734 N.E.2d 749, 95 N.Y.2d 826, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1420 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[827]*827OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, who was part of a crew blacktopping the driveway at defendant’s home, fell and sustained injuries while running from a beehive, after an unsuccessful attempt to kill the bees with “bug spray” provided by defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, dismissing the complaint, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed for reasons stated by the Trial Justice. This appeal is before us as a matter of right based on a two-Judge dissent (see, CPLR 5601 [a]). We agree with the Trial Justice and the Appellate Division majority that plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant breached a duty of reasonable care by maintaining a dangerous condition on his property or by providing plaintiff with ineffective bug spray.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

[827]*827OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, who was part of a crew blacktopping the driveway at defendant’s home, fell and sustained injuries while running from a beehive, after an unsuccessful attempt to kill the bees with “bug spray” provided by defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, dismissing the complaint, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed for reasons stated by the Trial Justice. This appeal is before us as a matter of right based on a two-Judge dissent (see, CPLR 5601 [a]). We agree with the Trial Justice and the Appellate Division majority that plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant breached a duty of reasonable care by maintaining a dangerous condition on his property or by providing plaintiff with ineffective bug spray.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 N.E.2d 749, 95 N.Y.2d 826, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanton-v-pomfrey-ny-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack