Lamp v. County of Cortland

781 N.E.2d 905, 98 N.Y.2d 748, 751 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 3142
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 17, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, arid defendants’ motion for summary judgment denied. Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact on the common-law negligence cause of action as to whether defendants owed a duty of care and whether defendants breached that duty.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

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

Lamp v. County of Cortland, 781 N.E.2d 905, 98 N.Y.2d 748, 751 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 3142 (N.Y. 2002).

781 N.E.2d 905 (Lamp v. County of Cortland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Havens v. County of Saratoga
50 A.D.3d 1223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bodie v. Morgenthau
342 F. Supp. 2d 193 (S.D. New York, 2004)