Rosario v. Bann Housing Corp.

220 A.D.2d 345, 633 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10450
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 26, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Tar-gum, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1994, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to amend its answer to set forth counterclaims against plaintiffs’ parents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of evidence that the parents had a duty with respect to the painting of their rented apartment (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 78; Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2013 [h]) or otherwise affirmatively created the condition giving rise to the injury (see, Barocas v Woolworth Co., 207 AD2d 145, 149), the allegations of the proposed counterclaims are insufficient to overcome the rule prohibiting claims based on negligent parental supervision (Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35; compare, Alharb v Sayegh, 199 AD2d 229). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Rosario v. Bann Housing Corp., 220 A.D.2d 345, 633 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

220 A.D.2d 345 (Rosario v. Bann Housing Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bracero v. 2780 Realty Co.
221 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)