Stein v. Club Med Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. Club Med Sales, Inc.

239 A.D.2d 402, 658 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 402 (Stein v. Club Med Sales, 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

Stein v. Club Med Sales, Inc., 239 A.D.2d 402, 658 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered March 1, 1996, which, upon a decision of the same court dated June 19, 1995, upon the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 11, 1996, as, upon reargument, adhered to its decision of June 19, 1995.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order made upon reargument of a decision (see, Stockfield v Stockfield, 131 AD2d 834); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

As a general rule, a travel booking agent cannot be held liable for the negligence of the resort booked by the agent (see, Cohen v Heritage Motor Tours, 205 AD2d 105, 107; Jacobson v Princess Hotels Intl., 101 AD2d 757, 759). Because the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence raising a genuine triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant owned or controlled the resort in question, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Goessel v Club Med Sales, 209 AD2d 356; Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Thompson 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered March 1, 1996, which, upon a decision of the same court dated June 19, 1995, upon the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 11, 1996, as, upon reargument, adhered to its decision of June 19, 1995.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order made upon reargument of a decision (see, Stockfield v Stockfield, 131 AD2d 834); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

As a general rule, a travel booking agent cannot be held liable for the negligence of the resort booked by the agent (see, Cohen v Heritage Motor Tours, 205 AD2d 105, 107; Jacobson v Princess Hotels Intl., 101 AD2d 757, 759). Because the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence raising a genuine triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant owned or controlled the resort in question, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Goessel v Club Med Sales, 209 AD2d 356; Meshel v Resorts Intl., 160 AD2d 211). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 402, 658 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-club-med-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack