Russo v. Liebler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Liebler

191 A.D.2d 999, 595 N.Y.S.2d 164

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 999 (Russo v. Liebler) 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

Russo v. Liebler, 191 A.D.2d 999, 595 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Church of Saints Peter and Paul (Church) for summary judgment. There are issues of fact whether Church officials had notice that snowball throwing by students presented a special danger (see, Lawes v Board of Educ., 16 NY2d 302; Cioffi v Board of Educ., 27 AD2d 826). In particular, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, raises factual issues [1000]*1000whether Church officials had notice that the snow had become icy or contained chunks of ice and that large groups of students regularly engaged in snowball fights in the Church parking lot after Confraternity of Christian Doctrine classes.

All concur, except Lawton and Doerr, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Rath, Jr., J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Church of Saints Peter and Paul (Church) for summary judgment. There are issues of fact whether Church officials had notice that snowball throwing by students presented a special danger (see, Lawes v Board of Educ., 16 NY2d 302; Cioffi v Board of Educ., 27 AD2d 826). In particular, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, raises factual issues [1000]*1000whether Church officials had notice that the snow had become icy or contained chunks of ice and that large groups of students regularly engaged in snowball fights in the Church parking lot after Confraternity of Christian Doctrine classes.

All concur, except Lawton and Doerr, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Rath, Jr., J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 999, 595 N.Y.S.2d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-liebler-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack