Ramesar v. Surooj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramesar v. Surooj

221 A.D.2d 612, 635 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 612 (Ramesar v. Surooj) 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

Ramesar v. Surooj, 221 A.D.2d 612, 635 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated August 18, 1994, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to add three counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert three counterclaims against the plaintiff-father for contribution and/or indemnification. The defendants’ proposed amended answer failed to allege "the type of affirmative conduct needed by a parent to remove this case from the general rule that mere negligent supervision of a child is not actionable” (Navaro v Ieraci, 214 AD2d 713, 714). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated August 18, 1994, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to add three counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert three counterclaims against the plaintiff-father for contribution and/or indemnification. The defendants’ proposed amended answer failed to allege "the type of affirmative conduct needed by a parent to remove this case from the general rule that mere negligent supervision of a child is not actionable” (Navaro v Ieraci, 214 AD2d 713, 714). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 612, 635 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramesar-v-surooj-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack