Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

235 A.D.2d 263, 652 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 292

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 263 (Williams v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, 235 A.D.2d 263, 652 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 20, 1995, which, inter alia, granted third-party defendant’s motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances, as a matter of law, the movants owed no duty of care to the infant plaintiff, who was injured as a result of a third person’s intentional, exceptional and unforeseeable act and, in any event, the intervening act of the third person constituted a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injuries, which would relieve movants of any liability to plaintiff (Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781; see, Elardo v Town of Oyster Bay, 176 AD2d 912). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 20, 1995, which, inter alia, granted third-party defendant’s motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances, as a matter of law, the movants owed no duty of care to the infant plaintiff, who was injured as a result of a third person’s intentional, exceptional and unforeseeable act and, in any event, the intervening act of the third person constituted a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injuries, which would relieve movants of any liability to plaintiff (Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781; see, Elardo v Town of Oyster Bay, 176 AD2d 912). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 263, 652 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack