McGill v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGill v. McGill

127 A.D.2d 996, 512 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43496

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 996 (McGill v. McGill) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 996, 512 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgill-v-mcgill-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack