Denicker v. Denicker

173 A.D.2d 516
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 516 (Denicker v. Denicker) 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
Denicker v. Denicker, 173 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant [517]*517Ellen Denicker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated October 13, 1989, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the drowning death of her seven-year-old son which occurred when the boat on which he was a passenger capsized beneath the Throgs Neck Bridge. The plaintiff contends that the appellant Ellen Denicker was negligent in holding onto the decedent while in the water and pushing him under the water thereby causing his death. The decedent was wearing a life preserver at the time of the accident while the appellant was not.

Under the facts of this case, the appellant was not negligent as a matter of law and the court should have granted summary judgment in her favor. When the boat capsized and the passengers were thrown into the water, the appellant was confronted with an emergency not of her own making and without an opportunity for deliberation (see, Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660). Under the emergency circumstances presented, the appellant was not obligated to exercise her best judgment and any error in her judgment was not sufficient to constitute negligence (see, Rowlands v Parks, 2 NY2d 64; Moller v Lieber, 156 AD2d 434). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the appellant. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ruotolo v. Ambu-Wagon, Inc.
206 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Rivas v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority
203 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 A.D.2d 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denicker-v-denicker-nyappdiv-1991.