Friedlander v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedlander v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc.

71 A.D.3d 823, 895 N.Y.S.2d 846

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 823 (Friedlander v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Friedlander v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 823, 895 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated February 3, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim by demonstrating that the acts complained of did not implicate a duty owed to the world at large, but merely involved a claim that the infant plaintiff was negligently [824]*824supervised by his parent, a nonactionable tort (see Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647, 651 [2001]; LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., 90 NY2d 576, 579 [1997]; Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815, 816 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 907 [1984]; Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 50-51 [1974]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim (see Mazza v Ed Tompkins Plumbing Corp., 53 AD3d 599 [2008]; Horan v Brown, 43 AD3d 608, 609 [2007]; Wheeler v Sears Roebuck & Co., 37 AD3d 710, 711 [2007]; McNamara v Banney, 249 AD2d 950, 951 [1998]; Navaro v Ieraci, 214 AD2d 713, 714 [1995]). Prudenti, P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated February 3, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim by demonstrating that the acts complained of did not implicate a duty owed to the world at large, but merely involved a claim that the infant plaintiff was negligently [824]*824supervised by his parent, a nonactionable tort (see Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647, 651 [2001]; LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., 90 NY2d 576, 579 [1997]; Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815, 816 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 907 [1984]; Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 50-51 [1974]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim (see Mazza v Ed Tompkins Plumbing Corp., 53 AD3d 599 [2008]; Horan v Brown, 43 AD3d 608, 609 [2007]; Wheeler v Sears Roebuck & Co., 37 AD3d 710, 711 [2007]; McNamara v Banney, 249 AD2d 950, 951 [1998]; Navaro v Ieraci, 214 AD2d 713, 714 [1995]). Prudenti, P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 823, 895 N.Y.S.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedlander-v-doherty-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack