 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEMORANDUM PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT TRIAL JUSTICE RESPONDENT COSTS BUG SPRAY REASONS JUDGE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING COMPLAINT DIVIDED APPELLATE DIVISION MATTER TWO-JUDGE DISSENT CPLR APPELLATE DIVISION MAJORITY EVIDENCE DUTY REASONABLE CARE DANGEROUS CONDITION INEFFECTIVE BUG SPRAY CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CIPARICK WESLEY ROSENBLATT CONCUR |
4 No. 93
Shy Stanton et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Robert Pomfrey,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 90
June 29, 2000
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by P. Michael Shanley, for appellants.
Submitted by Vincent A. O'Neil, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, who was part of a crew blacktopping the driveway at
defendant's home, fell and sustained injuries while running from a
beehive, after an unsuccessful attempt to kill the bees with "bug
spray" provided by defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment
to defendant, dismissing the complaint, and a divided Appellate
Division affirmed for reasons stated by the Trial Justice. This appeal
is before us as a matter of right based on a two-judge dissent (see,
CPLR 5601 (a)). We agree with the Trial Justice and the Appellate
Division majority that plaintiff failed to present evidence that
defendant breached a duty of reasonable care by maintaining a
dangerous condition on his property or by providing plaintiff with
ineffective bug spray.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and
Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt
concur.
Decided June 29, 2000
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
