McGill v. McGill

127 A.D.2d 996, 512 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43496
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 27, 1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant parent contends that it was error for Special Term to deny his motion for summary judgment because the infant plaintiiFs complaint alleged only negligent supervision (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35). We agree. The infant plaintiff was injured when his father left him alone in codefendants’ living room. While unsupervised, the child was attacked and bitten by codefen[997]*997dants’ dog, sustaining serious facial lacerations. Because the crux of the parent’s culpability was negligent supervision, his motion for summary judgment must be granted (see, Wilson v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 126 AD2d 954; Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815, affd 62 NY2d 907). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Doyle, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

McGill v. McGill, 127 A.D.2d 996, 512 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

127 A.D.2d 996 (McGill v. McGill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pravato v. Pravato
175 A.D.2d 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)