From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meltzer v. Danon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1992
188 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 28, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).


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

During the course of a chartered boat ride, the plaintiff was injured when the boat shifted suddenly, causing coffee urns to spill hot coffee on him, burning his arm and leg. Some of the other passengers had brought the urns on board. The plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that the crew was negligent in failing to ensure that the urns were secure or warn the passengers of the danger that they might spill. In support of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, one of the crew asserted that he had warned the passengers to keep the urns out of the galley, where it was unsafe, and had personally removed the urns to a safer location several times. Other passengers, however, did not remember receiving any instruction regarding the placement of the urns or recall seeing any crew member moving the urns at any point. Since questions of fact exist as to whether the crew was negligent, the court properly denied the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Gerrish v Panama Canal Co., 7 Misc.2d 719, mod on other grounds 5 A.D.2d 818).

Furthermore, the court's granting of summary judgment to the third-party defendants was also correct. In its third-party complaint, the defendant sought indemnity from the other passengers on the theory that they acted as joint venturers in chartering the vessel, and thus that they were responsible for passenger safety. The third-party defendants made a prima facie showing that there was no agreement to share profits or losses realized, and thus that they were not joint venturers (see generally, Williams v Forbes, 175 A.D.2d 125; Ackerman v Landes, 112 A.D.2d 1081). The appellant, in turn, has failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning that issue.

We have examined the appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Meltzer v. Danon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1992
188 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Meltzer v. Danon

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS L. MELTZER, Respondent, v. LOU DANON, Doing Business as, and Also…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 28, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 850

Citing Cases

Goodstein Properties, Inc. v. Rego

Rego made a prima facie showing that there was no agreement to share profits or losses, and thus that he and…