Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp

215 A.D.2d 625, 628 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458

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

DecidedMay 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 625 (Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp) 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

Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp, 215 A.D.2d 625, 628 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated January 24, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, who had been drinking, dived or jumped from a wood piling located on the defendant’s property into shallow water, rendering him a quadriplegic. The record indicates that this area was well known as a local diving destination and that the plaintiff was familiar with the water depth of the area.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The actions of the plaintiff, who was an experienced swimmer and diver and was familiar with the area, in diving headfirst into the shallow water was an unforeseeable superseding event absolving the defendant of liability (see, Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617; Valdez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 697). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated January 24, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, who had been drinking, dived or jumped from a wood piling located on the defendant’s property into shallow water, rendering him a quadriplegic. The record indicates that this area was well known as a local diving destination and that the plaintiff was familiar with the water depth of the area.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The actions of the plaintiff, who was an experienced swimmer and diver and was familiar with the area, in diving headfirst into the shallow water was an unforeseeable superseding event absolving the defendant of liability (see, Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617; Valdez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 697). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 625, 628 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derosa-v-us-dredging-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack