Collins v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. State

224 A.D.2d 273, 637 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1044

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

DocketClaim No. 69546

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 273 (Collins v. State) 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

Collins v. State, 224 A.D.2d 273, 637 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Court of Claims (Albert Blinder, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1994, dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Like the Court of Claims, our review of the relevant former provisions of 19 NYCRR parts 209-216 governing boxing matches leads us to conclude that there was no duty upon an inspector of the State Athletic Commission to inspect physically a boxing glove upon a boxer suiting up to ensure that it was free from concealed tampering. Our review of the facts also shows no basis for finding a special relationship (see, Flor[274]*274ence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195-196) between inspectors or any other State agents and a boxer which would have created such a duty. We have examined the claimants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ. [See, 162 Misc 2d 770.]

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

—Judgment, Court of Claims (Albert Blinder, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1994, dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Like the Court of Claims, our review of the relevant former provisions of 19 NYCRR parts 209-216 governing boxing matches leads us to conclude that there was no duty upon an inspector of the State Athletic Commission to inspect physically a boxing glove upon a boxer suiting up to ensure that it was free from concealed tampering. Our review of the facts also shows no basis for finding a special relationship (see, Flor[274]*274ence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195-196) between inspectors or any other State agents and a boxer which would have created such a duty. We have examined the claimants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ. [See, 162 Misc 2d 770.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 273, 637 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-state-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack