Adams v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.

261 A.D.2d 903, 689 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4960

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 903 (Adams v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Oak Park Marina, Inc., 261 A.D.2d 903, 689 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ mo[904]*904tion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the causes of action for negligent and reckless infliction of emotional distress. With respect to negligent infliction of emotional distress, the underlying statutory duty pursuant to General Business Law § 395-b (2) is breached by the installation of the video camera; whether a plaintiff was actually videotaped is not an essential element of the offense (see, Salamone v Oak Park Marina, 259 AD2d 987). With respect to reckless infliction of emotional distress, it is likewise unnecessary to establish that a plaintiff was actually videotaped (see, Salamone v Oak Park Marina, supra; Harkey v Abate, 131 Mich App 177, 346 NW2d 74). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ mo[904]*904tion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the causes of action for negligent and reckless infliction of emotional distress. With respect to negligent infliction of emotional distress, the underlying statutory duty pursuant to General Business Law § 395-b (2) is breached by the installation of the video camera; whether a plaintiff was actually videotaped is not an essential element of the offense (see, Salamone v Oak Park Marina, 259 AD2d 987). With respect to reckless infliction of emotional distress, it is likewise unnecessary to establish that a plaintiff was actually videotaped (see, Salamone v Oak Park Marina, supra; Harkey v Abate, 131 Mich App 177, 346 NW2d 74). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 903, 689 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-oak-park-marina-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack