Smith v. ABC Realty Co.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1972
• Citation: 71 Misc.2d 384,336 N.Y.S.2d 104
• Parties: Janet SMITH, * Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ABC REALTY CO., * Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

Page 104

336 N.Y.S.2d 104

71 Misc.2d 384

Janet SMITH, ^* Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ABC REALTY CO., *

Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

May 5, 1972.

Harold M. Foster, William F. McNulty and Anthony J. McNulty, New York City, for appellant.

Strauss & Ferdinand, New York City (David A. Ferdinand, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MARKOWITZ, J.P., and STREIT, and LUPIANO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc.2d 543, 268 N.Y.S.2d 54, aff'd 52 Misc.2d 527, 276 N.Y.S.2d 128; Levin v. Eleto Realty Corp., 160 Misc. 141, 289 N.Y.S. 667; Grant v. Godfrey Nurse Houses, Inc., Sup., 136 N.Y.S.2d 751; Cardona v. Barbat, Sup., 56 N.Y.S.2d 451; Horney v. World Island Estates, Inc., 20 A.D.2d 849, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1002, aff'd 15 N.Y.2d 564, 254 N.Y.S.2d 537, 203 N.E.2d 218, cert. den. 380 U.S. 987, 85 S.Ct. 1360, 14 L.Ed.2d 279). It has been repeatedly observed that 'The act of a party sought to be charged is not to be regarded as a proximate cause unless it is in clear sequence with the result and unless it could have been reasonably anticipated that the consequences complained of would result from the alleged wrongful act' (Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N.Y. 425, 430, 141 N.E. 904, 905; Dunn v. State of New York, 29 N.Y.2d 313, 318, 327 N.Y.S.2d 622, 626, 277 N.E.2d 647, 650). The circumstances presented in the instant record do not warrant such conclusion.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed.

MARKOWITZ, J.P. (concurring).

The circumstances leading to plaintiff's injuries shown by her testimony and the police record did not justify a finding that defendant should have reasonably anticipated that the consequences complained of by plaintiff would result from defendant's negligent act (Dunn v. State of New York, 29 N.Y.2d 313, 318, 327 N.Y.S.2d 622, 626, 277 N.E.2d 647, 650; Cartee v. Saks Fifth Ave., 277 App.Div. 606, 609--610, 101 N.Y.S.2d 761, 764--765, affd. 303 N.Y. 832, 104 N.E.2d 375; Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc.2d 543, 268 N.Y.S.2d 54, affd. 52 Misc.2d 527, 276 N.Y.S.2d 128; Levin v. Eleto Realty Corp., 160 Misc. 141, 289 N.Y.S. 667, revg. 157 Misc. 180, 283 N.Y.S. 105; see also: McLeod v. Grant County School District #128, 42 Wash. 316, 255 P.2d 360, 362; Saugerties Bank v. Delaware and Hudson Co., 236 N.Y. 425, 430, 141 N.E. 904, 905; Luce v. Hartman, 6 N.Y.2d 786, 188 N.Y.S.2d 184, 159 N.E.2d 677).

In this posture of the record, I concur in the result reached by this Court.

* Names are fictitious for the purposes of publication.

...