Anderson v. Rowe

Decision Date11 January 1980
Citation73 A.D.2d 1030,425 N.Y.S.2d 180
PartiesRobert ANDERSON, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of Judy Anderson, Janet Anderson and Jane Anderson, Deceased, and Bonnie Anderson, Individually, Appellants, v. Donald A. ROWE, Respondent (And another action.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Hurwitz & Fine, P. C., by James Gauthier, Buffalo, for appellants.

Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Bauman, Chatman & Oppenheimer by Louis D'Amanda, Rochester, for respondent.

Before CARDAMONE, J. P., and HANCOCK, SCHNEPP, CALLAHAN and MOULE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for conscious pain and suffering brought by the administrator of the estate of Janet Anderson and Judy Anderson was properly granted. All of the evidence shows that these girls were killed instantly upon impact. The plaintiff was not able to present any evidence that they suffered any conscious pain. Nor was the plaintiff able to show evidence from which one might imply that the decedents were aware of the danger and suffered from pre-impact terror. Summary judgment was properly granted in the second action because it was not timely brought. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (CPLR 3025 subd. (b)).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • O'Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., s. 56
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 Marzo 1984
    ... ... State, 84 A.D.2d 650, 651, 444 N.Y.S.2d 307, 309 (3d Dep't 1981); Anderson v. Rowe, 73 A.D.2d 1030, 1031, 425 N.Y.S.2d 180, 181 (4th Dep't 1980). See also Juiditta v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 75 A.D.2d 126, 138, 428 ... ...
  • Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. Partnership
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1997
    ... ... T. Rowe Price Foundation, 329 Md. 709, 745-46, 621 A.2d 872, 890 (1993); Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 458, 620 A.2d 327, 338 (1993); Vance v. Vance, 286 ... See Anderson v. Rowe, 73 A.D.2d 1030, 425 N.Y.S.2d 180, 181 (4th Dept.1980). Moreover, the Fourth Department's recognition of the pre-impact mental anguish claim ... ...
  • Delosovic v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 4 Abril 1989
    ... ... Cabot Corp., 17 A.D.2d 455, 235 N.Y.S.2d 753 (1st Dep't 1962), aff'd 13 N.Y.2d 1027, 245 N.Y.S.2d 600, 195 N.E.2d 310; Anderson v. Rowe, 73 A.D.2d 1030, 425 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th Dep't 1980) ...         Here any claim of pain and suffering in the flash between contact ... ...
  • Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. Partnership v. Beynon
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1996
    ... ... In Anderson v. Rowe, 73 A.D.2d 1030, 425 ... Page 378 ... N.Y.S.2d 180 (1980), the appellate court affirmed denial of any award for conscious pain and ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT