Weinstein v. Seawane Golf & Country Club, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstein v. Seawane Golf & Country Club, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 5995, 153 A.D.3d 582, 59 N.Y.S.3d 438

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

DecidedAugust 2, 2017

Docket2016-07332

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5995 (Weinstein v. Seawane Golf & Country Club, 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

Weinstein v. Seawane Golf & Country Club, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 5995, 153 A.D.3d 582, 59 N.Y.S.3d 438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated July 5, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the evening of July 5, 2014, the plaintiff Barbara Weinstein (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was at premises owned and operated by the defendants Seawane Golf and Country Club, Inc., and The Seawane Club (hereinafter together the club). The defendant Donald F. Mollitor, who was the general manager of the club, was standing next to a table with his back to the injured plaintiff. As she approached the table, he allegedly backed up and bumped into her, causing her to fall and sustain personal injuries. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced the instant action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that Mollitor was not negligent in *583 the happening of the accident and that the defendants did not create a dangerous or defective condition in the placement of the table (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib., 125 AD3d 768 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated July 5, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the evening of July 5, 2014, the plaintiff Barbara Weinstein (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was at premises owned and operated by the defendants Seawane Golf and Country Club, Inc., and The Seawane Club (hereinafter together the club). The defendant Donald F. Mollitor, who was the general manager of the club, was standing next to a table with his back to the injured plaintiff. As she approached the table, he allegedly backed up and bumped into her, causing her to fall and sustain personal injuries. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced the instant action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that Mollitor was not negligent in *583 the happening of the accident and that the defendants did not create a dangerous or defective condition in the placement of the table (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib., 125 AD3d 768 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5995, 153 A.D.3d 582, 59 N.Y.S.3d 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-seawane-golf-country-club-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack