Fauci v. Milano

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, John P. Donohoe; The Appellate Division reversed the order, granted the motion, directed judgment for the landowners dismissing the complaint, and held that the attractive nuisance doctrine is not applicable in New
• Citation: Fauci v. Milano, 238 N.Y.S.2d 313, 12 N.Y.2d 926 (N.Y. 1963)
• Decision Date: 23 January 1963
• Parties: , 188 N.E.2d 525 Claudia Marie FAUCI, an infant, by her Guardian ad Litem, Frank J. Fauci, and Frank J. Fauci, individually, Appellants, v. Teresa MILANO et al., Respondents.

Page 313

238 N.Y.S.2d 313

12 N.Y.2d 926, 188 N.E.2d 525

Claudia Marie FAUCI, an infant, by her Guardian ad Litem Frank J. Fauci, and Frank J. Fauci, individually, Appellants, v. Teresa MILANO et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 23, 1963.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 15 A.D.2d 939, 225 N.Y.S.2d 888.

Infant, by her father as guardian ad litem, and the father brought action against landowners for injuries sustained by the infant and for medical expenses. The infant was about 10 1/2 years old at time of accident and was a social guest on the premises of the landowners and was playing the game of follow the leader with landowners' daughter and other children in the landowners' back yard. During the course of the game the infant fell over the partially constructed wall of a patio, which was in the process of being built, when the infant attempted to jump over the partially finished wall.

The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, John P. Donohoe, J., entered an order denying the motion of the landowners for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and they appealed.

The Appellate Division reversed the order, granted the motion, directed judgment for the landowners...