Semmens v. Hopper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Semmens v. Hopper

128 A.D.2d 767, 513 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44454

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 767 (Semmens v. Hopper) 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

Semmens v. Hopper, 128 A.D.2d 767, 513 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Cowhey, J.), dated November 7, 1985, which granted the defendant Gerald R. Hopper’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provisions thereof which granted those branches of the respondent’s motion which were for partial summary judgment on the claims in the complaint with the exception of the claims for negligent supervision, and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[768]*768Special Term was correct that a child has no cause of action against a parent for injuries resulting from negligent supervision (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35). However, a question of fact exists as to whether the breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the accessibility to a swimming pool, a duty owed separate and apart from the family relationship, was the proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries (see, Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264; Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Cowhey, J.), dated November 7, 1985, which granted the defendant Gerald R. Hopper’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provisions thereof which granted those branches of the respondent’s motion which were for partial summary judgment on the claims in the complaint with the exception of the claims for negligent supervision, and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[768]*768Special Term was correct that a child has no cause of action against a parent for injuries resulting from negligent supervision (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35). However, a question of fact exists as to whether the breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the accessibility to a swimming pool, a duty owed separate and apart from the family relationship, was the proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries (see, Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264; Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 767, 513 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semmens-v-hopper-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack