Zaccagnino v. Polytech Pool Mfg., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaccagnino v. Polytech Pool Mfg., Inc.

249 A.D.2d 466, 671 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4249

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 466 (Zaccagnino v. Polytech Pool Mfg., 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

Zaccagnino v. Polytech Pool Mfg., Inc., 249 A.D.2d 466, 671 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered April 11, 1997, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its prior determination in an order entered August 27, 1996, granting the motions of the defendants Polytech Pool Mfg., Inc., Swimland Recreational Pool & Patio Center, Inc., Ronald A. Sinisgalli, and Mengo Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the infant plaintiffs reckless conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injuries (see, Howard v Poseidon Pools, 72 NY2d 972; Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered April 11, 1997, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its prior determination in an order entered August 27, 1996, granting the motions of the defendants Polytech Pool Mfg., Inc., Swimland Recreational Pool & Patio Center, Inc., Ronald A. Sinisgalli, and Mengo Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the infant plaintiffs reckless conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injuries (see, Howard v Poseidon Pools, 72 NY2d 972; Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 466, 671 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaccagnino-v-polytech-pool-mfg-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack