Rottenberg v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rottenberg v. Sullivan

187 A.D.2d 571, 591 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12932

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 571 (Rottenberg v. Sullivan) 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

Rottenberg v. Sullivan, 187 A.D.2d 571, 591 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff and the defendants Peter Sullivan and Barbara Sullivan separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 16, 1991, which granted the motion of the defendants Carl Bayer and John Bayer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, and the cross claim asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Bayers’ negligence merely furnished the occasion for an unrelated act to cause injuries which would not be ordinarily anticipated (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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, the plaintiff and the defendants Peter Sullivan and Barbara Sullivan separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 16, 1991, which granted the motion of the defendants Carl Bayer and John Bayer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, and the cross claim asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Bayers’ negligence merely furnished the occasion for an unrelated act to cause injuries which would not be ordinarily anticipated (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 571, 591 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rottenberg-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack