Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Katieann Blomberg, appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. C.N.M. Rose Lounge, Inc., et al., defendants, USA Center Moriches Gas and Convenient, Inc., respondent.
Argued-October 5, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Katieann Blomberg appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated June 3, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant USA Center Moriches Gas and Convenient, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her against that defendant.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs payable by the respondent, and that branch of the motion of the defendant USA Center Moriches Gas and Convenient, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant against it is denied.
On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant USA Center Moriches Gas and Convenient, Inc. (hereinafter USA Gas), came forward with evidence sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not sell alcohol to the defendant Heather Carroll on the night of the incident in question. In opposition, the appellant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Carroll had purchased alcohol from USA Gas.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of USA Gas's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant against it.
DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, BALKIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2009-07174 (Index No. 7385 /04)
Decided: October 26, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)