Curley v. Szumowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curley v. Szumowski

269 A.D.2d 486, 703 N.Y.S.2d 732, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 486 (Curley v. Szumowski) 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

Curley v. Szumowski, 269 A.D.2d 486, 703 N.Y.S.2d 732, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs (see, Leonard v Kinney Sys., 199 AD2d 470; Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271, 276), the emergency doctrine does not entitle the defendants to summary judgment as a matter of law. The record presents issues of fact concerning the participation of the defendant Gregory Szumowski in the creation of the emergency (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327), and whether the conduct of that defendant, considered in light of the emergency, was reasonable (see, Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 293). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs (see, Leonard v Kinney Sys., 199 AD2d 470; Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271, 276), the emergency doctrine does not entitle the defendants to summary judgment as a matter of law. The record presents issues of fact concerning the participation of the defendant Gregory Szumowski in the creation of the emergency (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327), and whether the conduct of that defendant, considered in light of the emergency, was reasonable (see, Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 293). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 486, 703 N.Y.S.2d 732, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curley-v-szumowski-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack