Andersen v. Plumbing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andersen v. Plumbing

246 A.D.2d 475, 667 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 639

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 475 (Andersen v. Plumbing) 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

Andersen v. Plumbing, 246 A.D.2d 475, 667 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Oman-sky, J.), entered on or about May 24, 1996, as clarified by the order, same court and Justice, entered January 29, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Suska Plumbing’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from so much of the order entered January 29, 1997, as denied defendant Suska Plumbing’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable portion of the order.

The motion court properly denied defendant Suska Plumbing’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligent hiring claim, since there were numerous issues of fact concerning whether Suska breached a duty to plaintiff by failing to check references, whether a check of references would have created a duty of further inquiry or supervision, and as to whether the attack on plaintiff by Suska’s employee was foreseeable (see, Brandt v Elghanayan, 242 AD2d 240; Corbally v Sikras Realty Co., 161 AD2d 107; compare, Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401, lv denied 84 NY2d 811; see also, Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The record fails to support Suska Plumbing’s contentions concerning the relationship between the employee’s employment and his presence, alone, in plaintiff’s apartment. We have received Suska’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Oman-sky, J.), entered on or about May 24, 1996, as clarified by the order, same court and Justice, entered January 29, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Suska Plumbing’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from so much of the order entered January 29, 1997, as denied defendant Suska Plumbing’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable portion of the order.

The motion court properly denied defendant Suska Plumbing’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligent hiring claim, since there were numerous issues of fact concerning whether Suska breached a duty to plaintiff by failing to check references, whether a check of references would have created a duty of further inquiry or supervision, and as to whether the attack on plaintiff by Suska’s employee was foreseeable (see, Brandt v Elghanayan, 242 AD2d 240; Corbally v Sikras Realty Co., 161 AD2d 107; compare, Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401, lv denied 84 NY2d 811; see also, Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The record fails to support Suska Plumbing’s contentions concerning the relationship between the employee’s employment and his presence, alone, in plaintiff’s apartment. We have received Suska’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 475, 667 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andersen-v-plumbing-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack