Fowler v. Attenborough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fowler v. Attenborough

124 A.D.2d 780, 508 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62099

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 780 (Fowler v. Attenborough) 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

Fowler v. Attenborough, 124 A.D.2d 780, 508 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[781]*781The court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against the infant plaintiffs parents. The basis of the allegation of liability was not negligent supervision of their child (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35), but rather negligent supervision and control over the guests on their premises, some of whom were underage and drinking beer provided by the son of the third-party defendants. " '[A] child * * * has a viable cause of action against its parent[s] based on the parent[s’] negligent act which breaches a duty owed to the world at large’ ” (Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264, 266, quoting from Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157, 158); here, the duty owed is that of supervising and controlling infant guests (cf. Huyler v Rose, 88 AD2d 755). Thus, a third-party cause of action for contribution has been sufficiently stated to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

[781]*781The court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against the infant plaintiffs parents. The basis of the allegation of liability was not negligent supervision of their child (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35), but rather negligent supervision and control over the guests on their premises, some of whom were underage and drinking beer provided by the son of the third-party defendants. " '[A] child * * * has a viable cause of action against its parent[s] based on the parent[s’] negligent act which breaches a duty owed to the world at large’ ” (Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264, 266, quoting from Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157, 158); here, the duty owed is that of supervising and controlling infant guests (cf. Huyler v Rose, 88 AD2d 755). Thus, a third-party cause of action for contribution has been sufficiently stated to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 780, 508 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-attenborough-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack