Thai v. Roman Catholic Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thai v. Roman Catholic Church

34 A.D.3d 225, 822 N.Y.S.2d 708

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 2, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered April 7, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for sum[226] mary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the infant plaintiff was, at the time of his fall, in defendant church’s custody and control, such that defendant owed him a duty of adequate supervision (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560 [1976]; Ramo v Serrano, 301 AD2d 640, 641 [2003]), whether such duty was breached, and, if so, whether the infant plaintiffs injuries were foreseeable (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered April 7, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for sum[226] mary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the infant plaintiff was, at the time of his fall, in defendant church’s custody and control, such that defendant owed him a duty of adequate supervision (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560 [1976]; Ramo v Serrano, 301 AD2d 640, 641 [2003]), whether such duty was breached, and, if so, whether the infant plaintiffs injuries were foreseeable (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Thai v. Roman Catholic Church, 34 A.D.3d 225, 822 N.Y.S.2d 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

34 A.D.3d 225 (Thai v. Roman Catholic Church) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related