Babcock v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Babcock v. City of New Rochelle

208 A.D.2d 879, 617 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10712

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 879 (Babcock v. City of New Rochelle) 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

Babcock v. City of New Rochelle, 208 A.D.2d 879, 617 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), dated May 7, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was walking down a ramp after parking his car in the defendant’s parking garage, claimed that in order to escape a gunman who threatened him, he had to climb a 3-Yz foot wall and jump down to the parking level below. The plaintiff contended that the garage was defectively designed because it failed to prevent him from climbing a 3-Yz foot wall and jumping down to a lower parking level, and because the garage did not have sufficient lighting. We disagree.

The defendant did not have a duty to prevent an unforeseeable harm. The plaintiff’s voluntary leap from a 3-Yz foot wall was an intervening act that could not have been foreseen (see, Rivera v City of New York, 11 NY2d 856; Harris v New York City Horn. Auth., 194 AD2d 714). The defendant’s motion for [880]*880summary judgment was therefore properly granted. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), dated May 7, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was walking down a ramp after parking his car in the defendant’s parking garage, claimed that in order to escape a gunman who threatened him, he had to climb a 3-Yz foot wall and jump down to the parking level below. The plaintiff contended that the garage was defectively designed because it failed to prevent him from climbing a 3-Yz foot wall and jumping down to a lower parking level, and because the garage did not have sufficient lighting. We disagree.

The defendant did not have a duty to prevent an unforeseeable harm. The plaintiff’s voluntary leap from a 3-Yz foot wall was an intervening act that could not have been foreseen (see, Rivera v City of New York, 11 NY2d 856; Harris v New York City Horn. Auth., 194 AD2d 714). The defendant’s motion for [880]*880summary judgment was therefore properly granted. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 879, 617 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-v-city-of-new-rochelle-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack