From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sporbert v. Lenox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1998
251 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 1, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Questions of fact exist as to the comparative fault of the injured plaintiff Michael Sporbert which warranted the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, MacDowall v. Koehring Basic Constr. Equip., 49 N.Y.2d 824; Massie v. Commercial Envelope Mfg. Co., 245 A.D.2d 551; Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 125 A.D.2d 65).

Further, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendants Alex Kelly and Richard Kelly for summary judgment, as questions of fact exist as to the infant Alex Kelly's degree of involvement in the subject prank (see, Vanacore v. Teigue, 243 A.D.2d 706).

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sporbert v. Lenox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1998
251 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Sporbert v. Lenox

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. SPORBERT et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. ELIZABETH LENOX, an…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 1009

Citing Cases

Barrett v. Watkins

Although Dubrovsky stated during his examination before trial that Ebert was not employed by one of the…