Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Louis KINGSBURY and Jo Ann Kingsbury, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Joseph L. Kingsbury, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Leslie WELCH, et al., Defendants, Village of Avon, Village of Avon Police Department, and Avon Police Officer Michael Miller, Defendants-Respondents.
Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the Village of Avon, the Village of Avon Police Department and Avon Police Officer Michael Miller (defendants) seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' remaining claim against them (cf. Parvi v. City of Kingston, 41 N.Y.2d 553, 559-560, 394 N.Y.S.2d 161, 362 N.E.2d 960; Walsh v. Town of Cheektowaga, 237 A.D.2d 947, 654 N.Y.S.2d 912, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 889, 661 N.Y.S.2d 833, 684 N.E.2d 283). Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages arising from the death of Joseph L. Kingsbury (decedent) from acute alcohol intoxication after he fell asleep in the garage of a residence in Avon. Prior to the death of decedent, Miller encountered him while investigating a party at that residence and, before leaving, warned the homeowner of the dangers associated with decedent's intoxication. Plaintiffs contend that defendants are liable under general negligence principles because Miller left decedent there in a highly intoxicated condition. In moving for summary judgment, however, defendants established that Miller did not take charge of decedent. Indeed, they established that the homeowner assumed his care. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether Miller was aware of the helpless condition of decedent, we conclude that they failed to raise the requisite triable issue of fact whether Miller took charge of him (cf. Walsh, 237 A.D.2d at 947-948, 654 N.Y.S.2d 912). The court therefore properly granted defendants' motion.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 13, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)