Villariny v. Aveda Corp., 264 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Villariny v. Aveda Corp., 264 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Beckford v. Pantresse, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2008-05-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beckford v. Pantresse, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
This, along with the conclusory medical proof relied upon by the plaintiff, failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the causal relationship between Pantresse’s hair product and the plaintiff’s condition (see Clarke v Helene Curtis, Inc., 293 AD2d at 702 ; Villariny v Aveda Corp., 264 AD2d 415, 416 [1999]; Kracker v Spartan Chem.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Luz F. Villariny, Sued Herein as Marilyn Panchault
v.
Aveda Corporation, Also Known as A-Veda Corporation
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 9, 1999.
264 A.D.2d 415
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated July 28, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

[*416] The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that its product was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries, an essential element of her causes of action to recover damages for negligence and products liability (see, Olsovi v Salon DeBarney, 118 AD2d 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.