From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arcuri v. Voigt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 2009-08391, 2010-00708.

November 23, 2010.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered July 15, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant GS Automotive Repair, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered December 15, 2009, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Henry Stanziale, Mineola, N.Y. (Thomas Stanziale of counsel), for appellant.

Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 15, 2009, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered December 15, 2009, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered December 15, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant GS Automotive Repair, Inc.

"Without a duty running directly to the injured person there can be no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm" ( Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100; see Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 782).

Here, since the plaintiffs claims against the defendant GS Automotive Repair, Inc. (hereinafter GS), are predicated on the failure to detect an alleged safety defect during a State-mandated inspection of the vehicle owned by the defendant Kenneth C. Voight which the plaintiffs decedent was driving, we find, as a matter of law, that GS owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs decedent. Therefore, GS's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly granted ( see Stiver v Good Fair Carting Moving, Inc., 9 NY3d 253; Neidhart v K.T. Brake Spring Co., 55 AD3d 887).


Summaries of

Arcuri v. Voigt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Arcuri v. Voigt

Case Details

Full title:ROSEMARY ARCURI, Appellant, v. KENNETH C. VOIGT et al., Defendants, and GS…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8686
911 N.Y.S.2d 641