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.
Nagma SINGH, etc., et al., appellants, v. Rajcoomarie Betty PERSAUD, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered November 16, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendant's motion made at the close of the plaintiffs' case for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant's motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.
Although the defendant, who was caring for the infant plaintiff and several other children in her home, was not an insurer of the children entrusted to her care, she was under a duty to adequately supervise such children, and can be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the lack of adequate supervision (see, Breland v. Flushing YMCA, 245 A.D.2d 410, 666 N.Y.S.2d 473). Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant did not demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since a question of fact exists as to whether the defendant adequately supervised the infant plaintiff on the day in question (see, Breland v. Flushing YMCA, supra; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
Furthermore, while an extraordinary and unforeseeable act will sever the causal connection between a defendant's actions and a plaintiff's injuries, the issue of whether an injury-producing act was foreseeable is typically a question for the trier of fact to resolve (see, Dennis v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 577, 578, 613 N.Y.S.2d 243; see also, Broad v. Patico Corp., 243 A.D.2d 434, 662 N.Y.S.2d 809; Ceglia v. Portledge School, 187 A.D.2d 550, 590 N.Y.S.2d 228). The defendant testified, as a witness called by the plaintiffs, that she was aware that the older children were running in the living room and might potentially harm each other. This created an issue of fact as to whether it was foreseeable that the infant plaintiff's older brother would fall on her, causing injury (see, Dennis v. City of New York, supra). The trial court therefore erred in granting the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 07, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)