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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 9, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

264 A.D.2d 415 (Villariny v. Aveda Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related