Diaz v. City of New York
| Citation | 23 N.Y.2d 748,296 N.Y.S.2d 796 |
| Parties | , 244 N.E.2d 267 Raymond DIAZ, an infant, by his Guardian ad Litem, Modesto Diaz, and Modesto Diaz, Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1968 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 25 A.D.2d 430, 266 N.Y.S.2d 532 J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Stanley Buchsbaum, William M. Murphy, New York City, of counsel), for respondent City of New York.
Sassower & Sassower, New York City (George Sassower, Doris L. Sassower, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.
Schaffner & Furey, New York City (William F. Larkin, James J. Rogan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc. Infant, by his father, and the father individually brought action against City of New York and contractor to recover for injuries sustained by infant in fall from ladder of a sliding pond in playground and for medical expenses and loss of services. The infant was then six years of age. The sliding pond was constructed by the contractor, there were no playground supervisors present. When the infant was part way up the ladder of the flowing pond he was pushed in the stomach by another child and fell. The infant and his father alleged negligence on part of the city and contractor in failing to provide supervision in the playground.
The city filed a cross complaint against the contractor for indemnity.
The Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Thomas A. Aurelio, J., entered judgment for the infant and his father against the city, dismissing the complaint as to the contractor, and granting judgment to the city on its cross complaint for indemnity against the contractor.
The Appellate Division entered an order March 17, 1966 which modified, on the law and the facts, and as modified, affirmed the judgment of the Special and Trial Term. The modification consisted of dismissing the complaint as to the city and dismissing the cross complaint.
The infant and his father appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that reversal of the jury verdict for the infant and his father against the city and dismissal of the complaint by the Appellate Division was factually and legally indefensible, and that dismissal of the action against the contractor was error, and that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in holding that a new trial would be required, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Town & Country Summer Day Camp, Inc.
...app. den. 12 N.Y.2d 648, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 190 N.E.2d 27; Diaz v. City of N.Y., 25 A.D.2d 430, 266 N.Y.S.2d 532, aff'd 23 N.Y.2d 748, 296 N.Y.S.2d 796, 244 N.E.2d 267). A contributing, proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injury was his own negligence in placing himself in a position,......
-
Griffin v. County of Orange
...Skating, 193 A.D.2d 774, 598 N.Y.S.2d 75; Diaz v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 430, 430-431, 266 N.Y.S.2d 532, aff'd. 23 N.Y.2d 748, 296 N.Y.S.2d 796, 244 N.E.2d 267). Nor can it be said that no reasonable person would consider the risk of injury from colliding with a stationary object, whil......
-
Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co.
...The situation is completely similar to the facts in Diaz v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 430, 266 N.Y.S.2d 532, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 748, 296 N.Y.S.2d 796, 244 N.E.2d 267, where the court said, 25 A.D.2d at pages 430--431, 266 N.Y.S.2d at page 533, 'there was no credible evidence of conduct at th......
-
Nichter v. City of Buffalo
...the proximate cause of infant plaintiff's injuries (see Diaz v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 430, 266 N.Y.S.2d 532, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 748, 296 N.Y.S.2d 796, 244 N.E.2d 267). Order unanimously reversed without costs, motion granted and complaint ...