Szczepanik v. Szczepanik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szczepanik v. Szczepanik

216 A.D.2d 662, 627 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6162

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

DecidedJune 8, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 662 (Szczepanik v. Szczepanik) 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

Szczepanik v. Szczepanik, 216 A.D.2d 662, 627 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the [663]*663Supreme Court (Best, J.), entered October 24,1994 in Montgomery County, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Plaintiff injured the pinky finger of his right hand when defendant, his mother, grabbed plaintiffs right arm while he was operating an electric power drill in the course of assembling a metal shed. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s negligence. We disagree. Except in the most egregious instances, negligence is an issue of fact for the jury to resolve. In the instant case, defendant’s claimed physical infirmities, specifically her carpal tunnel syndrome, cataracts and inability to control her hand spasm, all raise questions of fact as to whether she was, in fact, negligent in the manner in which she approached plaintiff. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the [663]*663Supreme Court (Best, J.), entered October 24,1994 in Montgomery County, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Plaintiff injured the pinky finger of his right hand when defendant, his mother, grabbed plaintiffs right arm while he was operating an electric power drill in the course of assembling a metal shed. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s negligence. We disagree. Except in the most egregious instances, negligence is an issue of fact for the jury to resolve. In the instant case, defendant’s claimed physical infirmities, specifically her carpal tunnel syndrome, cataracts and inability to control her hand spasm, all raise questions of fact as to whether she was, in fact, negligent in the manner in which she approached plaintiff. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 662, 627 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szczepanik-v-szczepanik-nyappdiv-1995.