Fiola v. Korman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fiola v. Korman

189 A.D.2d 798, 592 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 333

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 798 (Fiola v. Korman) 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

Fiola v. Korman, 189 A.D.2d 798, 592 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered December 4, 1990, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs [799]*799or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Where a firefighter is injured as a result of the ordinary risks inherent in firefighting, or by the foreseeable consequences of the emergency that the firefighter was summoned to control, the firefighter is barred by the common-law “fireman’s rule” (Santangelo v State of New York, 71 NY2d 393, 397; McGee v Adams Paper & Twine Co., 26 AD2d 186, 190, affd 20 NY2d 921) from recovering damages from the property’s owner based on the latter’s negligence, regardless of whether the firefighter is a paid public servant, or, as in this case, an unpaid volunteer (see, Bourgeois v Duplessis, 540 So 2d 397 [La], writ denied 541 So 2d 1392 [La]; Flowers v Sting Sec., 62 Md App 116, 488 A2d 523; Baker v Superior Ct., 129 Cal App 3d 710, 181 Cal Rptr 311; Buchanan v Prickett & Son, 203 Neb 684, 279 NW2d 855). Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered December 4, 1990, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs [799]*799or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Where a firefighter is injured as a result of the ordinary risks inherent in firefighting, or by the foreseeable consequences of the emergency that the firefighter was summoned to control, the firefighter is barred by the common-law “fireman’s rule” (Santangelo v State of New York, 71 NY2d 393, 397; McGee v Adams Paper & Twine Co., 26 AD2d 186, 190, affd 20 NY2d 921) from recovering damages from the property’s owner based on the latter’s negligence, regardless of whether the firefighter is a paid public servant, or, as in this case, an unpaid volunteer (see, Bourgeois v Duplessis, 540 So 2d 397 [La], writ denied 541 So 2d 1392 [La]; Flowers v Sting Sec., 62 Md App 116, 488 A2d 523; Baker v Superior Ct., 129 Cal App 3d 710, 181 Cal Rptr 311; Buchanan v Prickett & Son, 203 Neb 684, 279 NW2d 855). Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 798, 592 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiola-v-korman-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack