Overton v. City of New York

675 N.E.2d 1225, 89 N.Y.2d 850, 653 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3570
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

Even though it is uncontroverted that on the day decedent drowned in a pool owned and operated by defendant there were fewer lifeguards than required by New York State Sanitary Code (10 NYCRR) § 6-1.23 and New York City Health Code (24 RCNY) § 165.21 (f), plaintiff failed to establish that the violation of these provisions was a proximate cause of her infant son’s fatal accident.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick 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 reversed, etc.

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

Overton v. City of New York, 675 N.E.2d 1225, 89 N.Y.2d 850, 653 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3570 (N.Y. 1996).

675 N.E.2d 1225 (Overton v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ray v. State
305 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)