Hoang v. Man Chong Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoang v. Man Chong Wong

49 A.D.3d 694, 853 N.Y.2d 654

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 694 (Hoang v. Man Chong Wong) 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

Hoang v. Man Chong Wong, 49 A.D.3d 694, 853 N.Y.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The failure of the defendant landlord to provide heat and hot water to the plaintiffs’ apartment was not a proximate cause of the personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. While the defendant’s conduct gave rise to the plaintiff mother’s attempt to provide a substitute supply of hot water so that the infant plaintiff could bathe, the intervening act of the mother and the son walking into each other while the mother sought to transport a pot of boiled water into the bathroom brought about the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. Those injuries would not have resulted from the failure to supply hot water alone, and cannot be classified as injuries normally to have been expected to ensue from the defendant landlord’s conduct (see Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819, 820 [1979]; Barragan v Mathai, 253 AD2d 508, 509 [1998]; Laureano v Louzoun, 165 AD2d 866 [1990]; see also Wells v Finnegan, 177 AD2d 893, 894 [1991]). In opposition to the defendant establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

The failure of the defendant landlord to provide heat and hot water to the plaintiffs’ apartment was not a proximate cause of the personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. While the defendant’s conduct gave rise to the plaintiff mother’s attempt to provide a substitute supply of hot water so that the infant plaintiff could bathe, the intervening act of the mother and the son walking into each other while the mother sought to transport a pot of boiled water into the bathroom brought about the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. Those injuries would not have resulted from the failure to supply hot water alone, and cannot be classified as injuries normally to have been expected to ensue from the defendant landlord’s conduct (see Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819, 820 [1979]; Barragan v Mathai, 253 AD2d 508, 509 [1998]; Laureano v Louzoun, 165 AD2d 866 [1990]; see also Wells v Finnegan, 177 AD2d 893, 894 [1991]). In opposition to the defendant establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 694, 853 N.Y.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoang-v-man-chong-wong-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack