Gomez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. City of New York

249 A.D.2d 362, 671 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3962

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 362 (Gomez v. City of New York) 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

Gomez v. City of New York, 249 A.D.2d 362, 671 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated April 16, 1997, 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 infant plaintiff, who resided with her mother and siblings in an apartment owned by the defendant, City of New York, was attempting to retrieve a toothbrush which had fallen into the bathtub when she fell into the tub. The tub contained [363]*363three or four inches of excessively hot water, and the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained a burn to her left shoulder. The plaintiffs allege that the hot water recurrently accumulated in the bathtub because of plumbing defects which included a malfunction of the drain mechanism and the continuous, unstoppable leaking of hot water from the bathtub faucet.

Although questions concerning what is foreseeable are generally for the fact-finder to resolve, there are certain instances where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts, and where the question of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law. Those cases generally involve independent, intervening acts which operate upon, but do not flow from, the original negligence (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308).

It is clear that in the present case the allegedly defective plumbing of the bathtub was not a proximate cause of the accident. The hot water created the specific injuries for which damages were sought, and determined the gravity of the consequences resulting from the accident, but did not cause the intervening act which was not foreseeable (see, Rivera v City of New York, 11 NY2d 856). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated April 16, 1997, 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 infant plaintiff, who resided with her mother and siblings in an apartment owned by the defendant, City of New York, was attempting to retrieve a toothbrush which had fallen into the bathtub when she fell into the tub. The tub contained [363]*363three or four inches of excessively hot water, and the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained a burn to her left shoulder. The plaintiffs allege that the hot water recurrently accumulated in the bathtub because of plumbing defects which included a malfunction of the drain mechanism and the continuous, unstoppable leaking of hot water from the bathtub faucet.

Although questions concerning what is foreseeable are generally for the fact-finder to resolve, there are certain instances where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts, and where the question of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law. Those cases generally involve independent, intervening acts which operate upon, but do not flow from, the original negligence (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308).

It is clear that in the present case the allegedly defective plumbing of the bathtub was not a proximate cause of the accident. The hot water created the specific injuries for which damages were sought, and determined the gravity of the consequences resulting from the accident, but did not cause the intervening act which was not foreseeable (see, Rivera v City of New York, 11 NY2d 856). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 362, 671 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack