Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schosek v. Amherst Paving, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 3, 2008Published

1Dissent

Fahey and Gorski, JJ. (dissenting in part).

We respectfully dissent in part and would modify the order by denying that part of the motion of defendant Amherst Paving, Inc. (Amherst Paving) seeking summary judgment dismissing “the action” against it. In our view, Amherst Paving failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe plaintiffs’ decedents a duty of care. As noted by the majority, the accident occurred after Amherst Paving began to repave the subject roadway but before it had completed the repaving. When defendant County of Erie (County) interrupted Amherst Paving’s repaving…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Church v. Callanan Industries, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. Graziadei v. MohamedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API