Parker v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker v. New York City Housing Authority

203 A.D.2d 345, 610 N.Y.S.2d 539

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

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 345 (Parker v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Parker v. New York City Housing Authority, 203 A.D.2d 345, 610 N.Y.S.2d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated April 23, 1992, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff was allegedly burned by scalding water when his brother accidentally turned off the cold water in the sink in which the infant plaintiff was being bathed. Despite the defendant’s contention, we find that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that its alleged negligence, in supplying exces[346]*346sively hot water to the infant plaintiff’s apartment, was not a proximate cause of the infant’s injuries (see, Daugherty v City of New York, 137 AD2d 441, 444-445). It was at least arguably foreseeable that the cold water would accidentally be turned off and someone would be burned by the hot water. Thus, the issue of proximate cause is a question for the finder of fact (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). We note, that unlike Lam v Neptune Assocs. (203 AD2d 334 [decided herewith]), the question of actual or constructive notice was not at issue on this appeal. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated April 23, 1992, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff was allegedly burned by scalding water when his brother accidentally turned off the cold water in the sink in which the infant plaintiff was being bathed. Despite the defendant’s contention, we find that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that its alleged negligence, in supplying exces[346]*346sively hot water to the infant plaintiff’s apartment, was not a proximate cause of the infant’s injuries (see, Daugherty v City of New York, 137 AD2d 441, 444-445). It was at least arguably foreseeable that the cold water would accidentally be turned off and someone would be burned by the hot water. Thus, the issue of proximate cause is a question for the finder of fact (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). We note, that unlike Lam v Neptune Assocs. (203 AD2d 334 [decided herewith]), the question of actual or constructive notice was not at issue on this appeal. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 345, 610 N.Y.S.2d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack