Legal Opinion
Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 9, 2015No. 17 / No. 66PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1116OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
In Doerr v Goldsmith, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant Smith’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted and the certified question answered in the negative. In Dobinski v Lock-hart, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Under the circumstances of these cases and in light of the arguments advanced by the parties, Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]) constrains us to reject plaintiffs’ negligence causes of action against defendants arising from injuries caused by defendants’…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Collier v. ZambitoNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Bard v. JahnkeNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Petrone v. FernandezNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Hastings v. SauveNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Hargro v. RossAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Costanza v. ScarlataAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Flanders v. GoodfellowNew York Court of Appeals · 2025
- Xin Kai Li v. MillerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- BRADY, NANCY J. v. CONTANGELO, TIMOTHY J.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.