We Try Harder, Inc. v. Dave Ball Chevrolet, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

We Try Harder, Inc. v. Dave Ball Chevrolet, Inc.

138 A.D.2d 958, 526 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2665

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 958 (We Try Harder, Inc. v. Dave Ball Chevrolet, 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

We Try Harder, Inc. v. Dave Ball Chevrolet, Inc., 138 A.D.2d 958, 526 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in its action seeking compensation for property damage inflicted upon plaintiff’s vehicle after it was stolen from a parking lot at defendant’s place of business. Defendant had prepared the car for delivery to plaintiff’s customer and had parked the car in the lot until the customer arrived. Plaintiff alleged that defendant left the keys in an unattended and unlocked car, thereby facilitating the theft. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted only an affidavit of its damage control manager, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the theft of the vehicle. That affidavit is insufficient to support a grant of summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]; Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp., 126 AD2d 477, 479; Onondaga Soil Testing v Barton, Brown, Clyde & Loguidice, 69 AD2d 984).

Moreover, critical factual issues exist concerning the relationship between the parties and the party who should bear the risk of loss which preclude summary determination. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — bailment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in its action seeking compensation for property damage inflicted upon plaintiff’s vehicle after it was stolen from a parking lot at defendant’s place of business. Defendant had prepared the car for delivery to plaintiff’s customer and had parked the car in the lot until the customer arrived. Plaintiff alleged that defendant left the keys in an unattended and unlocked car, thereby facilitating the theft. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted only an affidavit of its damage control manager, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the theft of the vehicle. That affidavit is insufficient to support a grant of summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]; Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp., 126 AD2d 477, 479; Onondaga Soil Testing v Barton, Brown, Clyde & Loguidice, 69 AD2d 984).

Moreover, critical factual issues exist concerning the relationship between the parties and the party who should bear the risk of loss which preclude summary determination. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — bailment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 958, 526 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/we-try-harder-inc-v-dave-ball-chevrolet-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack