Kerman v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kerman v. Board of Education

131 A.D.2d 639, 516 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48103

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

DecidedJune 15, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.2d 639 (Kerman v. Board of Education) 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

Kerman v. Board of Education, 131 A.D.2d 639, 516 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated January 28, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent cannot be held liable in this matter absent a special duty owed to the plaintiffs (see, e.g., Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, rearg denied 61 NY2d 759). In opposing the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of establishing a sufficient factual predicate to indicate the existence of such a special duty (see, Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17, 114 AD2d 835). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated January 28, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent cannot be held liable in this matter absent a special duty owed to the plaintiffs (see, e.g., Vitale v City of New York, 60 NY2d 861, rearg denied 61 NY2d 759). In opposing the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of establishing a sufficient factual predicate to indicate the existence of such a special duty (see, Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17, 114 AD2d 835). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 639, 516 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerman-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack