DeRider v. Haines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeRider v. Haines

168 A.D.2d 1005, 564 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16612

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 1005 (DeRider v. Haines) 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

DeRider v. Haines, 168 A.D.2d 1005, 564 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim for contribution against the father of the infant plaintiff. The undisputed facts submitted on the motion to amend show that defendant’s cause of action against the father, based on negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff, lacks merit (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35). This case does not fall within the exception to the rule set forth in Holodook (supra) because the bicycle operated by the infant was not a dangerous instrument (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332; Steinberg v Cauchois, 249 App Div 518; see also, Parsons v Wham-O, Inc., 150 AD2d 435; Young v Dalidowicz, 92 AD2d 242). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — amended answer.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim for contribution against the father of the infant plaintiff. The undisputed facts submitted on the motion to amend show that defendant’s cause of action against the father, based on negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff, lacks merit (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35). This case does not fall within the exception to the rule set forth in Holodook (supra) because the bicycle operated by the infant was not a dangerous instrument (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332; Steinberg v Cauchois, 249 App Div 518; see also, Parsons v Wham-O, Inc., 150 AD2d 435; Young v Dalidowicz, 92 AD2d 242). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — amended answer.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 1005, 564 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derider-v-haines-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack