Rivera v. Cicero

294 A.D.2d 554, 743 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5559
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 554 (Rivera v. Cicero) 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
Rivera v. Cicero, 294 A.D.2d 554, 743 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated March 1, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The infant plaintiff, then two years old, was allegedly burned by hot water in a bathroom sink while he and his mother were visiting an apartment in the defendants’ building. During the night, the infant’s mother was awakened, entered the bathroom and observed the infant sitting on the floor holding his burned feet. Subsequently, she also observed approximately an inch of water in the sink, steam on the mirror, and the infant’s hand prints on the mirror above the sink.

The infant plaintiff and his mother commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent in failing to properly regulate the maximum temperature of the water. They contended that the accident occurred when the infant climbed onto the bathroom sink and turned on the hot water. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the issue of proximate cause was a question of fact for the jury to determine. We disagree.

There is no proof that the defendants’ alleged negligence in supplying excessively hot water to the apartment was a proximate cause of the infant’s injuries. On the record here, there was no proof introduced as to how the accident happened. The plaintiffs’ scenario is sheer speculation. O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mauskopf v. 1528 Owners Corp.
102 A.D.3d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Sikder v. Cerritos
18 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Orwell Building Corp. v. Bessaha
5 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Gerena v. Town of Brookhaven
306 A.D.2d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 A.D.2d 554, 743 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-cicero-nyappdiv-2002.