Simmons v. Sacchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simmons v. Sacchetti

61 A.D.3d 492, 875 N.Y.S.2d 892

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 14, 2009·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2008, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims of defendants Vito Sacchetti and TMS Management Company for failure to state a cause of action or for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs dismissing the counterclaims.

Plaintiffs seek damages for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff after she wandered into the bathroom and entered the tub, which was filling with scalding water. As the counterclaims brought by the building owner and management company are based on the mother’s negligent supervision of the infant, they do not state a cause of action (see Muñoz v Mael Equities, 286 AD2d 213, 213-214 [2001]; Deshler v East W. Renovators, 275 AD2d 252 [2000]; Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 907 [1984]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2008, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims of defendants Vito Sacchetti and TMS Management Company for failure to state a cause of action or for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs dismissing the counterclaims.

Plaintiffs seek damages for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff after she wandered into the bathroom and entered the tub, which was filling with scalding water. As the counterclaims brought by the building owner and management company are based on the mother’s negligent supervision of the infant, they do not state a cause of action (see Muñoz v Mael Equities, 286 AD2d 213, 213-214 [2001]; Deshler v East W. Renovators, 275 AD2d 252 [2000]; Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 907 [1984]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Simmons v. Sacchetti, 61 A.D.3d 492, 875 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

61 A.D.3d 492 (Simmons v. Sacchetti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related