Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corp.

262 A.D.2d 550, 691 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7025

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 550 (Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corp.) 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

Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corp., 262 A.D.2d 550, 691 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 6, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Flore Fence Corporation and the defendant Thomas Claro for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

While climbing over a temporary fence installed by the defendant Flore Fence Corporation on property owned by the defendant Thomas Claro, the infant plaintiff, then 11 years old, fell to the ground and injured his arm. The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants since the record presents no issues of fact warranting a trial (see, Koppel v Hebrew Academy, 191 AD2d 415). S. Miller, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 6, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Flore Fence Corporation and the defendant Thomas Claro for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

While climbing over a temporary fence installed by the defendant Flore Fence Corporation on property owned by the defendant Thomas Claro, the infant plaintiff, then 11 years old, fell to the ground and injured his arm. The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants since the record presents no issues of fact warranting a trial (see, Koppel v Hebrew Academy, 191 AD2d 415). S. Miller, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 550, 691 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-flore-fence-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack