Koulajian v. Smith
This text of 101 A.D.3d 498 (Koulajian v. Smith) 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.
Opinions
[499]*499Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there is no evidence in the record to support her theory that either of defendants was pulling the suitcase that plaintiff tripped over. Although defendants assert that the child was in control of the suitcase, plaintiff insists that the child was not. Accordingly, she could not prove a claim for negligent supervision, as such a cause of action is dependent on an allegation that a child improvidently used or operated a dangerous instrument (see Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647, 652-653 [2001]). In light of this, the dissent’s argument concerning whether the suitcase was a dangerous instrument is wholly academic.
We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, Catterson and BeGrasse, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 A.D.3d 498, 954 N.Y.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koulajian-v-smith-nyappdiv-2012.