Lovelace v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovelace v. City of New York

232 A.D.2d 534, 648 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10436

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 534 (Lovelace v. City of New York) 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

Lovelace v. City of New York, 232 A.D.2d 534, 648 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant St. Francis Prep, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 21, 1995, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

"Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49). We conclude that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to her claim that inadequate supervision by the appellant St. Francis Prep, was a proximate cause of injuries to the plaintiff’s decedent. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, 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 wrongful death, etc., the defendant St. Francis Prep, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 21, 1995, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

"Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49). We conclude that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to her claim that inadequate supervision by the appellant St. Francis Prep, was a proximate cause of injuries to the plaintiff’s decedent. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 534, 648 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovelace-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack