Randolph v. Crane, 278 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Randolph v. Crane, 278 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Smith v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania (nyappdiv, 2017-03-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Further, the statements of witnesses at the gas station/convenience store did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiffs fall occurred during a storm in progress (see Helms v Regal Cinemas, Inc., 49 AD3d 1287, 1288 [2008]; Vickery v Estate of Brockman, 278 AD2d 913, 914 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Further, the statements of witnesses at the gas station/convenience store did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiffs fall occurred during a storm in progress (see Helms v Regal Cinemas, Inc., 49 AD3d 1287, 1288 [2008]; Vickery v Estate of Brockman, 278 AD2d 913, 914 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rapini v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Additionally, defendant “failed to establish that there was a storm in progress on the day of plaintiffs accident” (Vickery v Estate of Brockman, 278 AD2d 913, 914 [2000]) and therefore “failed to meet [its] initial burden of establishing that plaintiffs injuries were caused by a storm in progress” (Stalker v Crestview Cadillac Corp., 284 AD2d 977, 978 [2001]; see Frazier v Pioneer Cent.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Santerre v. Golub Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although Golub and K-Mart established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue whether plaintiff s fall occurred while a storm was in progress or within a reasonable time thereafter (see Cerra v Perk Dev., 197 AD2d 851 [1993]; see also Vickery v Estate of Brockman, 278 AD2d 913, 914 [2000]), plaintiffs raised a triable question of fact in that respect.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frazier v. Pioneer Central School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nor did defendant establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a storm in progress (see Stalker v Crestview Cadillac Corp., 284 AD2d 977 ; see also Vickery v Estate of Brockman, 278 AD2d 913, 914 ; Gilmartin v Tempestoso, 273 AD2d 875 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Linda L. Randolph
v.
Suzanne M. Crane, and Michael S. Strauss
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 27, 2000.
278 A.D.2d 913
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Suzanne M. Crane (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against her. Defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and neither plaintiffs nor the remaining defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether she was negligent in the operation of her vehicle (see, Betts v Marecki, 247 AD2d 916). We therefore modify the order by granting the motion of defendant and dismissing the complaint and cross claims against her. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.