From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 6, 1999

June 21, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 6, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Flore Fence Corporation and the defendant Thomas Claro for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Cheven, Keely Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellants.

Ronan, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Dawn C. DeSimone and Richard Harms of counsel), for respondent Flore Fence Corporation.

Huenke Rodriguez, Melville, N.Y. (Corey E. Schmidt of counsel), for respondent Thomas Claro.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

While climbing over a temporary fence installed by the defendant Flore Fence Corporation on property owned by the defendant Thomas Claro, the infant plaintiff, then 11 years old, fell to the ground and injured his arm. The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants since the record presents no issues of fact warranting a trial ( see, Koppel v. Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 191 A.D.2d 415).


Summaries of

Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT STEVENSON, etc., et al., appellants, v. FLORE FENCE CORPORATION, et…

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

Date published: Jun 21, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 340

Citing Cases

Wedlock v. Troncoso

The Court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion and held that (at 416) "[t]o hold that a landowner…

Wedlock v. Troncoso

The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion and held that "[t]o hold that a landowner must…