Overton v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Overton v. City of New York

225 A.D.2d 505, 639 N.Y.2d 806, 639 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3278

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 505 (Overton 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

Overton v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 505, 639 N.Y.2d 806, 639 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s four-year old son drowned in a swimming pool owned by defendant City. At trial, plaintiff established that at the time of the drowning there were 1,200 to 1,500 people in the pool and seven or eight lifeguards on duty, and that the City was therefore in violation of its own rule requiring at least one lifeguard for every 75 swimmers (New York City Health Code [24 RCNY] § 165.21 [f]). Such proof, by itself, was legally sufficient to establish both the City’s breach of its duty to provide adequate supervision of the swimmers and a relationship of proximate cause between that breach and the drowning (Brown v Board of Educ., 37 AD2d 836). “Plaintiff [506]*506need not demonstrate * * * that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the extent of injuries, was foreseeable” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Plaintiff’s four-year old son drowned in a swimming pool owned by defendant City. At trial, plaintiff established that at the time of the drowning there were 1,200 to 1,500 people in the pool and seven or eight lifeguards on duty, and that the City was therefore in violation of its own rule requiring at least one lifeguard for every 75 swimmers (New York City Health Code [24 RCNY] § 165.21 [f]). Such proof, by itself, was legally sufficient to establish both the City’s breach of its duty to provide adequate supervision of the swimmers and a relationship of proximate cause between that breach and the drowning (Brown v Board of Educ., 37 AD2d 836). “Plaintiff [506]*506need not demonstrate * * * that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the extent of injuries, was foreseeable” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 505, 639 N.Y.2d 806, 639 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overton-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack