From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Villariny v. Aveda Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 9, 1999
264 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 9, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that its product was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, an essential element of her causes of action to recover damages for negligence and products liability ( see, Olsovi v. Salon DeBarney, 118 A.D.2d 839). In opposition to the defendant's motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Villariny v. Aveda Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 9, 1999
264 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Villariny v. Aveda Corporation

Case Details

Full title:LUZ F. VILLARINY, Sued Herein as MARILYN PANCHAULT, Respondent, v. AVEDA…

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

Date published: Aug 9, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 446

Citing Cases

Sabessar v. Presto Sales Service, Inc.

Thus, any alleged lack of warning about such a hazard was obviated as a legal cause of any injury resulting…

Linborg v. Lance Camper Mfg. Corp.

As with a claim of design defect, a plaintiff alleging liability based on a failure to warn must establish…