Aquino v. Higgins

New York Court of Appeals

Aquino v. Higgins

938 N.E.2d 1006, 15 N.Y.3d 903

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 938 N.E.2d 1006 (Aquino v. Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aquino v. Higgins, 938 N.E.2d 1006, 15 N.Y.3d 903 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the fourth cause of action against John and Heather Higgins reinstated.

There is an issue of fact as to whether defendants provided adequate supervision for minor guests who became intoxicated at their home and, in particular, whether defendants properly supervised their departure from the premises (compare Rudden v Bernstein, 61 AD3d 736, 738 [2d Dept 2009]). Since the basis of any liability on defendants’ part, assuming proximate cause, rests on the duty to supervise (see Appell v Mandel, 296 AD2d 514 [2d Dept 2002]), rather than their duty as landowners, it is not dispositive that the injury occurred off premises. As a result, summary judgment should not have been granted in defendants’ favor and the cause of action for negligent supervision should be reinstated.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the fourth cause of action against John and Heather Higgins reinstated.

There is an issue of fact as to whether defendants provided adequate supervision for minor guests who became intoxicated at their home and, in particular, whether defendants properly supervised their departure from the premises (compare Rudden v Bernstein, 61 AD3d 736, 738 [2d Dept 2009]). Since the basis of any liability on defendants’ part, assuming proximate cause, rests on the duty to supervise (see Appell v Mandel, 296 AD2d 514 [2d Dept 2002]), rather than their duty as landowners, it is not dispositive that the injury occurred off premises. As a result, summary judgment should not have been granted in defendants’ favor and the cause of action for negligent supervision should be reinstated.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

938 N.E.2d 1006, 15 N.Y.3d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aquino-v-higgins-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack