Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Chiccino v. Hartman

Chiccino v. Hartman

87 A.D.2d 1002, 450 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16549
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 1982
StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 1002 (Chiccino v. Hartman) 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
Chiccino v. Hartman, 87 A.D.2d 1002, 450 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, 'motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff has no cause of action against her parents, the defendants herein, for negligent supervision (see Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35) or for negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality (see Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, [1003]*1003Wayne County, De Pasquale, J. •— dismiss complaint.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

Holodook v. Spencer
324 N.E.2d 338 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Nolechek v. Gesuale
385 N.E.2d 1268 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 1002, 450 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiccino-v-hartman-nyappdiv-1982.