Wray v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wray v. City of New York

30 A.D.2d 525, 290 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3901

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

DecidedMay 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 525 (Wray v. City of New York) 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

Wray v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 525, 290 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with respect to the Board of Education of the City of New York only, the judgment vacated with respect to said Board of Education, and a new trial directed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The action was dismissed at the end of the plaintiffs’ ease. Appellants concede there was no case made out against the City of New York, but urge that triable issues were raised with respect to the questions whether there was a breach of duty in supervision and, if so, was such breach the proximate cause of the accident. We agree. In reversing, however, we do not pass upon the ultimate merits of the cause, after a full trial, but only hold that triable issues of fact were raised which precluded dismissal on the record at that stage of the proceedings (Rivera v. Board of Educ., 11 A D 2d 7; Gonzalez v. Mackler, 19 A D 2d 229). Concur— Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with respect to the Board of Education of the City of New York only, the judgment vacated with respect to said Board of Education, and a new trial directed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The action was dismissed at the end of the plaintiffs’ ease. Appellants concede there was no case made out against the City of New York, but urge that triable issues were raised with respect to the questions whether there was a breach of duty in supervision and, if so, was such breach the proximate cause of the accident. We agree. In reversing, however, we do not pass upon the ultimate merits of the cause, after a full trial, but only hold that triable issues of fact were raised which precluded dismissal on the record at that stage of the proceedings (Rivera v. Board of Educ., 11 A D 2d 7; Gonzalez v. Mackler, 19 A D 2d 229). Concur— Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 525, 290 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wray-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.