Bird v. Zelin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bird v. Zelin

237 A.D.2d 107, 654 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2115

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 107 (Bird v. Zelin) 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

Bird v. Zelin, 237 A.D.2d 107, 654 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about August 22, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judg[108]*108ment dismissing the complaint; and order of the same court and Justice entered September 24, 1996, which granted reargument and thereupon adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint as plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether respondents’ alleged negligence in failing to provide pool depth markers or a safety rope line was a proximate cause of the accident. The record conclusively establishes, based upon plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that while she generally knew the varying depths of the pool, she was not looking at the pool at the time she "jumped” in and her "reckless conduct * * * constituted an unforeseeable superseding event sufficient to break the causal chain and thus absolve the defendants] of liability” (Kriz v Schum, 75 NY2d 25, 35; Magnus v Fawcett, 224 AD2d 241). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about August 22, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judg[108]*108ment dismissing the complaint; and order of the same court and Justice entered September 24, 1996, which granted reargument and thereupon adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint as plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether respondents’ alleged negligence in failing to provide pool depth markers or a safety rope line was a proximate cause of the accident. The record conclusively establishes, based upon plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that while she generally knew the varying depths of the pool, she was not looking at the pool at the time she "jumped” in and her "reckless conduct * * * constituted an unforeseeable superseding event sufficient to break the causal chain and thus absolve the defendants] of liability” (Kriz v Schum, 75 NY2d 25, 35; Magnus v Fawcett, 224 AD2d 241). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 107, 654 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bird-v-zelin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack