Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851

187 A.D.2d 296, 589 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12820

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered September 30, 1991, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find that the IAS Court properly denied summary judgment on the ground that triable issues of fact exist as to alleged negligence of defendants in the control and/or operation of the truck in which plaintiff was a passenger, and the reasonableness of precautionary steps undertaken by defendants in the face of picketing by striking workers (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364-365). Triable issues of fact also exist as to foreseeability of injury and whether the alleged intervening criminal act "is itself the foreseeable harm that shapes the duty [of care] imposed” (Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered September 30, 1991, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find that the IAS Court properly denied summary judgment on the ground that triable issues of fact exist as to alleged negligence of defendants in the control and/or operation of the truck in which plaintiff was a passenger, and the reasonableness of precautionary steps undertaken by defendants in the face of picketing by striking workers (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364-365). Triable issues of fact also exist as to foreseeability of injury and whether the alleged intervening criminal act "is itself the foreseeable harm that shapes the duty [of care] imposed” (Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851, 187 A.D.2d 296, 589 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 296 (Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related