Isler v. BUILD Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isler v. BUILD Inc.

293 A.D.2d 389, 740 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4062

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

DecidedApril 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 389 (Isler v. BUILD 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

Isler v. BUILD Inc., 293 A.D.2d 389, 740 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered January 16, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record discloses that defendants owned and operated the . building in which plaintiffs resided and had actual notice of the building’s defective hot water heaters and the resulting [390]*390hotter-than-normal water being supplied to the building’s tenants. These circumstances raise issues of fact as to whether it was foreseeable that the infant plaintiff would sustain burns while bathing from negligently overheated water (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562) and, accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. The intervening acts between defendants’ conduct and the infant’s injury do not under the circumstances here presented suffice, as a matter of law, to break the causal chain between defendants’ negligence and plaintiffs harm (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). In any event, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendants’ negligence was a concurrent proximate cause of plaintiffs harm. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered January 16, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record discloses that defendants owned and operated the . building in which plaintiffs resided and had actual notice of the building’s defective hot water heaters and the resulting [390]*390hotter-than-normal water being supplied to the building’s tenants. These circumstances raise issues of fact as to whether it was foreseeable that the infant plaintiff would sustain burns while bathing from negligently overheated water (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562) and, accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. The intervening acts between defendants’ conduct and the infant’s injury do not under the circumstances here presented suffice, as a matter of law, to break the causal chain between defendants’ negligence and plaintiffs harm (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). In any event, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendants’ negligence was a concurrent proximate cause of plaintiffs harm. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 389, 740 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isler-v-build-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack