LoPiccolo v. Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LoPiccolo v. Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc.

267 A.D.2d 149, 699 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13215

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 149 (LoPiccolo v. Chelsea GCA Realty, 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

LoPiccolo v. Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 149, 699 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 16, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant-appellant’s counterclaim against the infant plaintiffs mother, plaintiff Lisa LoPiccolo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant-appellant’s counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff mother’s negligence contributed to the infant plaintiffs harm, was predicated on a theory of negligent supervision and, as such, was nonactionable (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., 90 NY2d 576). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 16, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant-appellant’s counterclaim against the infant plaintiffs mother, plaintiff Lisa LoPiccolo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant-appellant’s counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff mother’s negligence contributed to the infant plaintiffs harm, was predicated on a theory of negligent supervision and, as such, was nonactionable (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., 90 NY2d 576). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 149, 699 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopiccolo-v-chelsea-gca-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack