Smith v. ABC Realty Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. ABC Realty Co.

71 Misc. 2d 384, 336 N.Y.S.2d 104

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 Misc. 2d 384 (Smith v. ABC Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. ABC Realty Co., 71 Misc. 2d 384, 336 N.Y.S.2d 104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc 2d 543, affd. 52 Misc 2d 527; Levin v. Eleto Realty Corp., 160 Misc. 141; Grant v. Godfrey Nurse Houses, 136 N. Y. S. 2d 751; Cardona v. Barbat, 56 N. Y. S. 2d 451; Horney v. World Is. Estates, 20 A D 2d 849, affd. 15 N Y 2d 564, cert. den. 380 U. S. 987). It has been repeatedly observed that “ The act of a party sought to be charged is not to be regarded as a proximate cause unless it is in clear sequence with the result and unless it could have been reasonably anticipated that the consequences complained of would result from the alleged wrongful act ” (Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N. Y. 425, 430; Dunn [385]*385v. State of New York, 29 N Y 2d 313, 318). The circumstances presented in the instant record do not warrant such conclusion.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc 2d 543, affd. 52 Misc 2d 527; Levin v. Eleto Realty Corp., 160 Misc. 141; Grant v. Godfrey Nurse Houses, 136 N. Y. S. 2d 751; Cardona v. Barbat, 56 N. Y. S. 2d 451; Horney v. World Is. Estates, 20 A D 2d 849, affd. 15 N Y 2d 564, cert. den. 380 U. S. 987). It has been repeatedly observed that “ The act of a party sought to be charged is not to be regarded as a proximate cause unless it is in clear sequence with the result and unless it could have been reasonably anticipated that the consequences complained of would result from the alleged wrongful act ” (Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N. Y. 425, 430; Dunn [385]*385v. State of New York, 29 N Y 2d 313, 318). The circumstances presented in the instant record do not warrant such conclusion.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Misc. 2d 384, 336 N.Y.S.2d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-abc-realty-co-nyappterm-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack