Villariny v. Aveda Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villariny v. Aveda Corp.

264 A.D.2d 415, 693 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636

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

DecidedAugust 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 415 (Villariny v. Aveda 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

Villariny v. Aveda Corp., 264 A.D.2d 415, 693 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated July 28, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[416]*416The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that its product was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries, an essential element of her causes of action to recover damages for negligence and products liability (see, Olsovi v Salon DeBarney, 118 AD2d 839). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated July 28, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[416]*416The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that its product was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries, an essential element of her causes of action to recover damages for negligence and products liability (see, Olsovi v Salon DeBarney, 118 AD2d 839). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 415, 693 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villariny-v-aveda-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack