Cunetta v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunetta v. Board of Education

121 A.D.2d 677, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58667

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

DecidedJune 30, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 677 (Cunetta v. Board of Education) 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

Cunetta v. Board of Education, 121 A.D.2d 677, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), entered [678]*678October 7, 1985, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The respondents cannot be held liable in this matter absent a special duty owed to the plaintiffs (see, e.g., Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, rearg denied 61 NY2d 759). In opposing the respondents’ motion, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing a sufficient factual predicate to indicate the existence of such a special duty (see, Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17, 114 AD2d 835).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), entered [678]*678October 7, 1985, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The respondents cannot be held liable in this matter absent a special duty owed to the plaintiffs (see, e.g., Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, rearg denied 61 NY2d 759). In opposing the respondents’ motion, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing a sufficient factual predicate to indicate the existence of such a special duty (see, Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17, 114 AD2d 835).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 677, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunetta-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack